O R D E R

The order of suspension, dated 29.01.2022, passed by the third respondent, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was working as Superintendent in the Regional Workshop (Health), Tiruchirapalli and placed under suspension on the ground as follows:

“On 29.01.2022 F.N. inspite of being continuously warned by the Workshop Superintendent, Regional Workshop (H), Trichy (the Head of Office) at many instances previously not to shoot video of the co- employees and officers at the work place, continued to take video using her mobile phone. At around 10.45 a.m., when the Workshop Superintendent in order to prevent her from taking the video and stop the unlawful activity, picked her mobile phone in the presence of office staff, while the video was being shot and handed it over to Thiru.K.Balakumar, Watchman, Regional Workshop (H), Trichy for safe custody. Tmt.D.S.Radhika suddenly resorted to violence, used abusive and filthy language and tried to attack the Officer. When the Officer moved away by instinct, she bit the hand of Thiru.K.Balakumar, Watchman, who stood behind the Workshop Superintendent thereby causing grievous injury to him. The Watchman was immediately admitted in the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichy, for treatment.”

3. The allegations set out in the impugned order are no doubt serious in nature.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, while submitting the facts, narrated that there are several allegations against the petitioner mostly regarding high-handedness and misbehaving indifferently with the other officials of the Department etc.

5. However, this Court cannot conduct enquiry in respect of such allegations, which all are to be gone into by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of enquiry. The fact remains that there are allegations and counter allegations both by the petitioner and the respondents. Thus, the Competent Authority has to conduct a detailed enquiry based on the documents and evidences available as the charges are serious in nature.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that using mobile phones by the public servants during office hours has become nowadays a normal scenario. Using mobile phones and taking videos inside the office is a grave misconduct. The officials working in the Government Departments should never be allowed to use mobile phones inside the office for their personal use. If at all any emergency call is to be attended, proper permission must be obtained from superiors to go out from the office and use mobile phones. In all circumstances, the mobile phones must be either switched off or kept in vibration / silent mode, without causing any disturbance or nuisance to be public, who all are attending the office as well as the other officials working in the office. This must be the minimum discipline to be followed in the Government Offices. Such allegations of using mobile cameras inside the office very frequently is causing disturbance and no doubt, this will disrupt the functioning of the public offices in the Departments and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Government should take serious note of this and the first respondent has to issue appropriate circular / instructions to all the Government Offices to ensure that the mobile phones are either kept in a common cloakroom at the time of entering into the office and for emergency calls, the official numbers kept in the office are to be utilized. In the event of allowing the employees to use mobile phones, without any restriction inside the office or allowing them to use mobile cameras inside the office, the same will result in serious consequences, even amongst the employees and the public, who all are attending the office. Therefore, the first respondent has to take note of the serious situation and issue appropriate circular / instructions to all the subordinate officers not to use mobile phones in the Government office