MANOJ H. MISHRA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 09-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 770 
MANOJ H. MISHRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2969 of 2013) 
APRIL 09, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y.EQBAL, JJ.] 
Labour Law - Misconduct - Removal - Propriety -
Appellant, workman and trade union leader, at an Atomic 
C power project - Accident at the project due to heavy rains -
Appellant wrote letter to Editor of a vernacular newspaper 
narrating about the incident and also highlighting serious 
lapses on the part of the project authorities in regard to 
functioning of the project and the imminent danger to it -
D Removal of appellant on ground that he unauthorisedly 
communicated to the Press, official information concerning 
the project; made statement, which amounted to criticism of 
the project management or casting of aspersion on the 
integrity of its authorities and enabled the press to create a 
E news story creating embarrassment to the project as well as 
to the State authorities - Punishment imposed on the 
appellant - Held: Was not disproportionate - Appellant 
without any justification assumed the role of vigilante - Action 
of appellant was not merely to highlight shortcomings in the 
F organization - Appellant indulged in making scandalous 
remarks by alleging that there was widespread corruption 
within the organization - Such allegations clearly had a 
deleterious effect throughout the organization apart from 
casting shadows of doubts on the integrity of the entire project 
G - Conduct of appellant did not fall within the high moral and 
ethical standard required of a bona fide "whistle blower" -
Employees working within the highly sensitive atomic 
organization are sworn to secrecy and have to enter into a 
confidentiality agreement - Appellant failed to maintain the 
H 
770 
· MANOJ H. MISHRA v UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
771 
standards of confidentiality and discretion as required - No · A 
injustice much less any grave injustice done to the appellant. 
Labour Law - Departmental Enquiry - Admission by 
delinquent workman - Closure of enquiry proceedings -
Removal - Plea for re-opening of the enquiry - Rejected by 8 
the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority- High Court 
declined to reopen thf:1 issue - On appeal, held: Once the 
Enquiry Officer had declined to accept the conditional 
admission made by the appellant-delinquent, it was open to 
him to deny the charges - But he chose to make an C 
unequivocal admi$sion, instead of reiterating his earlier 
denial as recorded in preliminary hearing - Extraordinary 
jurisdiction u/Article · 136 cannot be exercised for re-opening 
the entire issue at this stage - Such power reserved to enable 
the Supreme Court to prevent grave miscarriage of justice -
It is normally not exercised when the High Court has taken a 
D 
view that is reasonably possible - On facts, appellant failed 
to demonstrate any perversity in the decision rendered by the 
High Court - He cannot now be permitted to resile from the 
admission made before the Enquiry Officer - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Article 136. 
E 
Corruption - Prevention of - Informer - "Whistle blower" 
- Who is - Held: Every informer cannot automatically be said 
to be a bonafide "whistle blower" - "Whistle blower" would be 
a person who possesses the qualities of a crusader - His 
F 
honesty, integrity and motivation should leave little or no room 
for doubt - Primary motivation for action of a person to be 
called a "whistle blower" should be to cleanse an organization 
- It should not be incidental or byproduct for an action taken· 
for some ulterior or selfish motive - On facts, the appellant-
G 
delinquent did not fulfill the criteria for being granted the status 
of a "whistle blower". 
The appellant was a workman at Kakarapar Atomic 
Power Project (KAPP) at Surat, Gujarat. He was also the 
Genera~ Secretary of the recognized trade Union of H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A KAPP. There was an accident at the said Atomic power 
project due to heavy rains, when flood water entered into 
it and more than 25 feet of the turbine adjacent to the 
Nuclear reactors was submerged under water. 
8 
The appellant wrote a letter to the Editor of a 
vernacular newspaper 'Gujarat Samachar' narrating 
about the said incident and also highlighting serious 
lapses on the part of the authorities in regard to 
functioning of the project and the imminent danger to 
C KAPP. 
The respondent authorities placed the appellant 
. under suspension, in contempla

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.