Speaking to Media on Corruption: Madras HC Sets Aside TASMAC Employees' Suspension, but Allows Disciplinary Action for Violating Conduct Rules. - 2025-07-01

Madras HC Quashes Suspension of TASMAC Whistleblowers, Cites Improper Handling of Corruption Complaint

Madurai: In a significant ruling on employee conduct and whistleblower rights, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the suspension orders issued to three TASMAC salesmen who had approached the media to expose alleged corruption within the state-run corporation.

While quashing the suspension, Justice B. Pugalendhi granted liberty to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employees for violating its media conduct rules. The court observed that while the employees' act of approaching the media was a violation, their grievances about corruption were not addressed properly by the department.

Background of the Case

The case involved three writ petitions filed by K. Mayakannan , S. Murugan , and V. Ramasamy , all salesmen at TASMAC. They challenged their suspension orders dated August 22, 2022, which were issued after they gave interviews to Sathiyam TV and Thanthi TV. In the interviews, they alleged that the then District Manager of Madurai South, Ms. Rajeswari , was indulging in corrupt practices.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioners argued that they were forced to go to the media because their internal complaints went unheeded. They alleged that the District Manager, in collusion with a supervisor, was collecting a monthly "mamool" (bribe) of ₹3,000 to ₹5,000 from each shop. They claimed to have lodged a formal complaint with the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, providing a recording of a conversation as evidence. Despite the complaint being forwarded to TASMAC, they contended that no meaningful action was taken, prompting them to publicize their grievances.

Conversely, TASMAC argued that the petitioners had violated the Employees Conduct Code - 2014 by speaking to the media with the intent to tarnish the organization's reputation. The corporation stated that an internal inquiry was conducted into the corruption allegations, which concluded that the charges were not proven. The report was submitted on September 5, 2022, after the petitioners had already appeared on television on August 6, 2022.

Court's Observations and Reasoning

Justice B. Pugalendhi , after reviewing the submissions, noted a discrepancy in the handling of the petitioners' complaint. The court pointed out that the internal inquiry was closed simply based on the denial of the supervisor allegedly involved in the corruption, and the primary accused, the District Manager, had since been repatriated and retired.

In a crucial observation, the judgment stated:

"In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is something wrong in the department and the complaint of these petitioners was not addressed properly. Therefore, the petitioners have ventilated their grievances before the media."

The Court further emphasized the need for integrity within the state-run entity:

"The TASMAC is run by the government in order to prevent causalities on account of illicit arrack and it should not allow any corruption in the department. The department has to realise its mistake."

Final Verdict and Implications

The Court acknowledged that the petitioners had been working for the past two years under an interim stay of the suspension. Taking into account the flawed manner in which their initial complaint was handled, the court decided to set aside the suspension orders.

However, recognizing the breach of conduct rules, the final order clarified:

"...this Court sets aside the impugned suspension orders with liberty to the respondent corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioners for violating the aforesaid circulars."

This verdict balances the protection of whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing against the enforcement of organizational discipline. It underscores that while employees have a right to a fair hearing for their grievances, they must adhere to established procedural norms, and employers, in turn, have a duty to investigate such complaints with sincerity and transparency.