Madras High Court dismisses case filed by revenue officer on disciplinary proceedings against him, for supporting Lankan Tamils

G. Balamurugan, an Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, had gone on a hunger strike for seven days in February 2009, and had also written to the then Congress president criticising the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord

As a government servant he ought to have restrained himself in expressing his personal opinion, say the judges.

The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer for having gone on hunger strike in support of Sri Lankan Tamils for seven days between February 3 and 9 in 2009, besides writing a letter to the then Congress party president criticising the party’s policies, especially the one related to the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord.

Justices V.M. Velumani and R. Hemalatha dismissed a writ petition filed by G. Balamurugan serving as Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Central Excise in Chennai. The petition was filed last year challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on March 3, 2021. The CAT too, had refused to interfere with the departmental action taken against him.

Authoring the judgement for the Division Bench, Justice Hemalatha said the petitioner had joined the Customs department as Appraising Officer in 1993 and promoted to IRS in 2003. He was initially posted as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs at Salem and then transferred to Mumbai. He was placed under suspension in February 2009 and issued with a charge memo in June 2009.

Two charges were levelled against him. One was related to unauthorised absence, and the other was for having observed a hunger strike in support of Sri Lankan Tamils, besides writing the letter to the Congress president. After a detailed inquiry, final orders were passed on August 8, 2014 inflicting the penalty of pay reduction by three stages for a period of three years. The petitioner made a couple of representations to the President but to no avail.

In 2019, he approached the CAT which rejected his plea in 2021 leading to the present case. The petitioner argued the matter in person before the Division Bench and contended that a witch hunt had been unleashed against him for having expressed his sentiments supporting fellow Tamils in Sri Lanka. He told the court that neither his resignation in 2009 nor his voluntary retirement application in 2017 were accepted.

On the other hand, V. Sundareswaran, senior panel counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs, told the Bench the petitioner’s conduct in having criticised government policies, despite being a government servant, could not be taken lightly. He said, the resignation letter was submitted when the 2009 inquiry was pending and the voluntary retirement plea was made when another inquiry for having caused loss to the public exchequer was initiated in 2017.

The counsel also told the court that in 2009, the then Union Finance Minister had approved the charge memo issued to the petitioner and hence, it was wrong to contend that it was not approved of by the disciplinary authority. After hearing both sides, the judges wrote: “It is true that the petitioner showed his empathy towards his fellow Sri Lankan Tamil crisis, but as a Government servant he ought to have restrained himself in expressing his personal opinion.”

Highlighting that the petitioner had not denied the misconduct, the judges said, the CAT was right in holding his case had no merits. The Bench also stated the petitioner had erred in claiming that the charge memo did not have the approval of the then Finance Minister and that the latter had approved only the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.