IBRAHIM Vs. KERALA WAKF BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an employee of a Statutory Authority - or any employee for that matter-who invites the attention of the employer to adverse comments in the press about the employer be said to have committed a misconduct and placed under suspension Is not such action of the employer violative of the employee's right to free speech These interesting questions arise in this original petition.

(2.) Petitioner is the Head Accountant in the Kerala Wakf Board. He was suspended from service by Ext. P-8 order in view of the misconduct involved in the submission of Ext. P-4 representation and in spite of Ext. P-7 submitted by the petitioner Counsel for the petitioner submits that the submission of Ext. P-4 does not disclose any misconduct, nor does it justify any disciplinary action against him, in aid of which alone, he can be kept under suspension. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P-8 order.

(3.) Exts. P1 to P3 are three newspaper reports, which were published early in June this year, relating to some alleged irregularities in the handling of Wakf properties situated at Alleppey and Quilandy. In Ext. P1, it was insinuated that the degradation of wakf properties were made with the connivance of officers and other responsible persons in the Wakf Board, so as to disable action being taken against the offenders. Ext. P-2 report similarly contained an insinuation that connected documents were brought into being and were being used in proceedings before the Tribunals by clandestine means for creating some rights in favour of the offenders. Ext. P3 also insinuated that clandestine transactions regarding wakf properties were being indulged in by powerful people and action was not being taken in spite of the fact that these illegalities were brought to the notice of the Wakf Board. In Ext. P-4 signed by 18 persons including the petitioner, attention of the Board was drawn to Exts. P1 to P3 newspaper reports containing allegations relating to transactions involving wakf properties. It proceeded to request that detailed enquiries might be conducted into the allegations, and that the Government might be required to conduct an enquiry through the Vigilance Department as to whether any responsible person in the Wakf Board was involved in any dereliction of duty or illegal interference in the above transactions. The petitioner submits that the employees of the Board were justified in submitting Ext. P-4 to the Board in the light of the allegations insinuating that many of the officers of the Board were involved in the illegal transactions so that an enquiry was conducted enabling the employees to clear them. It is further submitted that Ext. P4 did not contain any reckless or scurrilous attack against the Board and was submitted in an anxiety to clear the institution and its employees of all allegations of impropriety in the conduct of a public Statutory authority. The petitioner submits that this is part of his fundamental freedom of speech, and that submission of representations in the nature of Ext. P4 does not involve any misconduct, particularly in view of the fact that rules have not so far been framed by the Wakf Board defining misconduct of its employees.