[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India vs Lalit Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:17362-Db) on 15 April, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:17362-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12713/2025
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence,
Government Of India, South Block, New Delhi.
2. Secretary, Department Of Defence Research And
Development Organization And Chairman, Defence
Research And Development Organization, Office At A
Block, Drdo Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
3. Director, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur-342001.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Lalit Kumar S/o Dr Sh Nk Jugtawat, Pal Link Road,
Jodhpur, Raj. At Present Working As Technical Officer,
Grade A Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur.
2. Sh Ravindra Kumar, Former Director, Resident Of Dlj
House, Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur-342001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia.
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Kshamendra Mathur.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
ORDER
15/04/2026
1. The limited issue arising for consideration in the present
petition pertains to imposition of a minor penalty, namely,
censure, upon Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 23.03.2021,
which penalty was affirmed in appeal vide order dated
10.08.2021.
2. The respondent No. 1, holding the post of Senior Technical
Assistant, was subjected to a departmental inquiry in respect of
the following charges framed against him:
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:25:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17362-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-12713/2025]
"That Shri Lalit Kumar while working as Technical Officer
'A' of Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur, despite security instructions
issued from time to time, carried his smart phone in his office in
Defence Laboratory, Jodhpur. The security instructions/guidelines
clearly prohibit usage of smart phones in
Laboratory/Establishments/ Units in DRDO and carrying of smart
phone in technical areas.
Shri Lalit Kumar, Technical Officer 'A' was involved in
sleazy chats with unknown contacts on WhatsApp and
Facebooks.
By doing so, Shri Lalit Kumar, Technical 'A' willfully violated
security instructions and committed an act of un-becoming of a
Govt. Servant. He thus violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (iii)
and 3(1) (xviii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
3. Upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the penalty of
censure was imposed upon Respondent No. 1.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Department submits that the petitioner-Department is a security-
sensitive organisation engaged in defence research, and that the
twin charges namely, unauthorized carriage of a smartphone
within the establishment and alleged use of WhatsApp for
communications with multiple female contacts are of serious
nature and ought not to be treated lightly.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
supports the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, submitting
that the Tribunal rightly set aside the charges on the ground that
the necessary documents were not furnished to the delinquent
employee and that the factual particulars constituting the alleged
misconduct were neither precisely nor adequately set out, notably,
the charge pertaining to carriage of the smartphone is bereft of
any specific date, time or details.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:25:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17362-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-12713/2025]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once
there was an acceptance and apology from the respondent No.1-
employee, there is no question of proving it any further and for
the second charge also, certain chats and other exchange of social
media posts with unknown persons.
7. This Court finds that though the petitioners may have some
reasons to carrying apprehension of breach of security in the
sensitive organization, but at the same time, once the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated, they ought to have been precised and
based on concrete fact rather than vague charges without any
date, time or details. The prayer of not providing with the
documents and necessary details has also not been dealt with and
has been adversely considered by the learned Tribunal.
8. This Court, on perusal of the record of the case, does not
find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However,
it is clarified that in future, it shall be open to the petitioner-
Department to obtain from Respondent No. 1 a written
undertaking, in such form as may be prescribed under the
applicable security policy, to the effect that he shall comply with
the security norms governing the establishment and shall refrain
from any act in violation thereof. Should such an undertaking be
sought, Respondent No. 1 shall furnish the same within a period of
three weeks from the date of demand. In the event of any breach
of such undertaking, the petitioner-Department shall be at liberty
to initiate such appropriate disciplinary action as may be
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:25:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17362-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-12713/2025]
warranted in accordance with law. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
28-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:25:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
