Telangana High Court
Vinay Vemula vs The Chairman Of The Board Of Directors ... on 14 October, 2024
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20619 OF 2024
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following relief:
" ... to consider this controversy originating from access of
school education data with Aadhar belonging to State
Governments in Digital India Team promoted by 1st
Respondent and led by 4th Respondent and issue a writ or
order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus declaring the acts of 1st to 4th Respondents and
Microsoft officials against petitioner illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 19, 20
and 21 of the Constitution of India and thereby directing 1st to
4th Respondents to follow due process and to uphold justice
and dignity and employee rights denied to petitioner and
directing the Good Offices of 6th to 9th Respondents to take
cognizance of the criminal actions of 1st to 4th Respondents
and Microsoft officials and hold said persons accountable for
their criminal deeds and take necessary criminal action against
above said persons and to pass ..."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as
permanent, full-time role ('Blue Badge' employee) in Digital India
team, Cloud and Artificial Intelligence department of Microsoft
India (R&D) Private Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of
respondent No.1 - company and his work location was at Microsoft
Campus in Building 3, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad, Telangana. It is stated that petitioner worked with his
heart and soul towards the mission of respondent No.1. The
Digital India Team where the petitioner worked throughout his
tenure at respondent No.1 - company addressed problems in
healthcare, school education, agriculture, skilling, Aadhar among
others and was regularly taking over work traditionally done by
Government departments and officials, in other words,
"transferring a department of Government to itself" which is
another benchmark classifying Digital India Team as 'State'.
3. It is submitted that Microsoft Academia Accelerator where
the petitioner travelled frequently representing respondent No.1 -
company received appreciation from respondent No.4, who was
providing valuable practical software development skills for higher
education students in Indian Institutes of Technology and also
discharging the functions of the 'State'. It is submitted that the
controversial projects where respondent Nos.1 to 4 violated
petitioner's fundamental rights are to improve school grades,
academic performance, increase school enrolment, and reduce
school dropouts among others. These projects are addressing Right
to Education under Article 21A which is a fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution of India and Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Though, these
projects are within the exclusive purview of the Government
Departments, they were run by platforms of respondent No.4 and
decisions were made for State Government Officials using
Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (for short 'AI & ML')
and used by State Project Directors and their reportees from Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan and also heads of State Governments. Hence, the
writ petition is maintainable.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he sacrificed his
personal life, weekends and health on many occasions to achieve
remarkable results in Digital India projects and other initiatives of
respondent No.1, in short time. The petitioner stretched his limits
and worked under severe resource crunch as management of
respondent No.1 including respondent No.4 wanted his team to
operate like a start up. Petitioner successfully achieved results
from the beginning winning applauds from one and all inside and
outside the company and regularly nominated by management and
senior employees including respondent No.4 to positively represent
the Microsoft and Digital India Team's brand at top tier
conferences, workshops, training programs and universities.
5. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra
Pradesh on 27.12.2015 posted on facebook during his breakfast
meeting with respondent Nos.1 and 4 where Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) was announced in education between the
respondent No.1 and Government of Andhra Pradesh which is at
the heart of the present controversy. There is news article
published on 01.06.2016 by a website providing insight of Sarkar -
Darbar which clearly shows respondent No.4 signing and
exchanging MoU between Microsoft and Government of Punjab
with senior Punjab Government official.
6. It is stated that petitioner joined Microsoft after these MoUs
were signed, thus, there is no possibility of petitioner knowing the
same in advance unless he has been provided with a copy of those
MoUs. Petitioner played a key role in launching MINE (Microsoft
Intelligent Network for Eye Care) project in December, 2016. This
was a very prestigious project for company to show leadership in
using Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare undertaken with direct
interest of respondent No.4 and led to MoU and discussion with
various state Governments in India including Telangana where
respondent No.4 directly participated. It is submitted that because
of the high positive impact of his work on 01.01.2017 the reportee
of respondent No.4 Mr. Prashanth Gupa made him World Wide
in-charge of software engineering to work with Information
Technology teams of world renowned hospitals of MINE Eyecare
project soon after the launch of the same in December, 2016.
7. It is stated that respondent No.1 travelled to India from his
office in United States and gave main keynote presentation at
Microsoft event 'Future Decoded' in India on 21.02.2017 -
22.02.2017. Respondent No.1 showed in presentation the clear
message 'Announcing Andhra Pradesh adopts Microsoft Cloud'
reconfirming that respondent No.1 was interested in Government
of Andhra Pradesh projects including education machine learning
project. It is also stated that petitioner was asserted in several other
prestigious projects of respondent Nos.1 and 4 where he worked
with Mrs. Saumya Chandra, his colleague and Mr. Prashant Gupta
and Mr. Subrata who are reportees of respondent No.4.
8. It is submitted that on 12.05.2017 petitioner began working
on presentation demo on the request of respondent No.4 to
showcase the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh regarding
Andhra Pradesh's School Education Dashboard under the constant
supervision of data scientist and close friend of respondent No.4,
Mrs. Chitra Sood. Petitioner was put in touch with a peer team in
Microsoft which provided access to data and later claimed that the
access was in violation of standard Government norms. Petitioner
orally informed Mr. Prashanth, reportee of respondent No.4 several
times of the contradictory statements emanating from peer teams
and he was under constant pressure from close friend of respondent
No.4 who is data scientist to share all the data with Cognizant
employees, but his concern was not taken seriously.
9. It is submitted that after a while, reportee of respondent
No.4, Mr. Subrata and peer manager of Mr. Prashant followed a
threatening approach against the petitioner in person and e-mails
and show-cause notices were issued to him to which he responded
and provided evidences. Petitioner lodged his first complaint in
May 2017, but the status of investigation was never shared with
him. It is submitted that Mr. Subrata, reportee of respondent No.4
hounded the petitioner to tell him about his contributions in annual
employee appraisal and petitioner filled up his contributions in
online connect form of Microsoft which was managed by
respondent No.3. On the same day, petitioner secured major win
for respondent No.4, even then Mr. Subrata gave negative appraisal
remarks and threatened him in Digital India Studio Conference
room adjacent to respondent No.4 office that all his work is being
taken away and he was not allowed to speak to anyone which
clearly shows the violation of fundamental rights. However, the
injustice and violation of his rights and dignity did not stop there
but was perpetuated by others as time has passed.
10. It is submitted that the Microsoft team of United States of
America headed by respondent No.2 conducted investigation using
an outside lawyer and took nearly one year for interrogation where
he was interrogated on many days by company lawyer of
respondent No.2 and outside lawyers. Though, the petitioner was
victim he was made to suffer throughout the investigation. He was
not given place to sit in the office and no work was assigned to him
for a year despite reminding several times Mrs. Namrata Roy,
Human Resource Director of respondent No.4 leadership team. He
was regularly participating in all company events and get together
parties prior on 20.05.2017 and later he was forced to hide which
violated his right to life with dignity.
11. It is submitted that petitioner was very distressed and hurt
with negligence of respondent No.3's department, but he silently
bore the suffering and made sacrifices in larger interest of the
company. The managers and co-conspirators who were doing
illegal actions against him have not suffered any repercussions
whatsoever during the investigation, per contra, they got awards,
rewards, increments and promotions. It is submitted that reportee
of respondent No.2 claimed after a year that they completed the
investigation but gave cryptic message on 25.07.2018 and did not
share the report of their investigation with petitioner despite he
being complainant.
12. It is submitted that after few days he was invited by
Mr. Subrata, reportee of respondent No.4 to meet in person, but no
work was allotted to him and no seat was allotted to him like others
in Digital India Team. Petitioner explicitly asked for meeting with
Mr. Subrata and respondent No.4 over e-mails and requested them
to grant permission to attend town halls of respondent No.4,
however, he was not permitted.
13. It is submitted that Mr. Subrata, reportee of respondent No.4
called the petitioner on the false pretext of taking him to
conference room and took him to reportee of respondent No.3,
Mr. Sanjay, who is a Human Resource Manager for the petitioner,
where he was confined and tortured for several hours in the room
to create a false and forced resignation under the directions of
respondent No.4's leadership.
14. It is submitted that the outside investigator Mrs. Alicia
Cullen tried to shut the petitioner down when he re-contacted her
after facing severe and unforgivable retaliations from respondent
No.3's Human Resource Department and Digital India Team
Managers and other managers under the orders from respondent
No.4 by asking him to contact the very same people who had taken
revenge on him for raising security complaints and caused him
severe mental and physical trauma by wrongfully confining him for
hours and making him to starve, denying access to toilet, using
security bouncers who forcefully took petitioner's signatures on
papers under the orders of respondent No.4 and other top
management of India Development Centre of Microsoft.
Petitioner's personal mobile was taken away by using criminal
force; his body was frisked and assaulted causing grievous hurt.
Petitioner raised several complaints over e-mail and Standards of
Business conduct website and even sent physical copies of his
complaints to respondent No.2 and awaiting replies from Microsoft
sacrificing his career and future. He was informed that a team
concerned of respondent No.2 is reviewing his complaints since
2018. Despite petitioner's repeated enquiries and requests there
was no response from the company.
15. It is submitted that in May 2024, petitioner came to know
from the Verge, a technology website that respondent No.1 sent a
memo to nearly 2,00,000 company employees where respondent
No.1 stated that "we should priortize security over everything
else". Respondent No.1 has given many interviews to the
prominent website on important occasions for Microsoft, hence,
this memo is authentic. The non-Microsoft outside team stated that
they "identified a series of Microsoft operational and strategic
decisions that collectively pointed to a corporate culture (at
Microsoft) that de-priortized enterprise security investments and
rigorous risk management, at odds with the company's centrality in
the technology ecosystem and the level of trust customers place in
the company to protect their data and operations".
16. It is submitted that petitioner was surprised to know that his
complaints were not taken seriously, they were doing an eye wash
investigation and his genuine complaints were kept pending since
several years. It is submitted that on 28.06.2024, respondent No.1
publicly stated referring to respondent No.2 that the data of their
customers was illegally accessed and potentially misused. To the
knowledge of the petitioner, he was also accused of the same by
respondent No.4 and his reportees Mr. Subrata and Mr. Prashant
and reportees of respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 publicly
stated that the data of the State Government has been illegally
accessed and potentially misused, but the petitioner was made to
suffer immeasurably over the years and made a scapegoat on the
same accusation.
17. It is submitted that the reportee of respondent No.4,
Mr. Subrata, in connivance with other conspirators made
misleading written statements in petitioner's employee service
records during annual company-wide appraisal stating that
petitioner violated business ethics and conduct without mentioning
about documentary evidence supplied by him in response to his
show-cause e-mails which proved his innocence without an iota of
doubt. Surprisingly, petitioner's manager wrote damaging remarks
blaming him in his employee service records managed by
respondent No.3 during annual appraisal for not sharing data,
program code and other secrets with outside Cognizant vendors
when such action would increase the privacy and security risk
further.
18. It is submitted that the unjust actions against the petitioner
began in the year 2017 and continues as on date as legal team of
respondent No.2 has purposefully withheld report of some
investigations which they say completed and refused to reveal the
names of investigators and contact information for other
investigations which are still pending. Respondent No.1 is making
public the investigation reports of recent security complaints which
are of 2023, while the petitioner's complaints have been left
unanswered since 2017.
19. It is submitted that petitioner visited respondent Nos.6 to 9
offices with his grievances and enclosures and they have not
provided any acknowledgments to them. Petitioner has sent his
written statements with enclosures by registered post on
29.08.2020 and 01.09.2020 but has not been able to learn further
on resolution of his grievances or action against company officials
from respondent Nos.6 to 9 offices. In the above circumstances,
left with no other alternative, petitioner invoked jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. Heard Mr. Vinay Vemula, petitioner - Party-In-Person,
Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Mr. B. Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
21. Interim order dated 08.08.2024 was passed by this Court
which reads as under:
"Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home, having received written
instructions, submitted that petitioner - Party-In-Person has
sent a representation through post on 29.08.2020 against
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and after lapse of four (4) years, present
writ petition is filed. As and when petitioner approaches
Police Station with fresh complaint along with
evidence/documents, necessary action will be taken in
accordance with law.
Mr. Vinay Vemula, petitioner - Party-In-Person,
submitted that the copy of the complaint
lodged by him earlier is available with Gachibowli Police
Station and he was asked to submit documents/evidence, in
that connection he received a call from concerned
Investigating Officer of Gachibowli Police Station.
In the circumstances, respondent No.9 - the Station
House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, is directed to
receive the documents/evidence submitted by the petitioner
and conduct enquiry/investigation in accordance with law.
Post on 29.08.2024."
22. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted
that application of the petitioner has been enquired into and
necessary action will be taken in accordance with law.
23. On 24.09.2024 when the matter was taken up for hearing,
Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for
Mr. K. Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 raised
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and
submitted that respondent No.4 is an Indian entity wherein
petitioner was employed as Software Engineer. Respondent Nos.1
to 3 are not Indian entities and have no relationship with the
petitioner. On 20.08.2018 petitioner voluntarily resigned from
respondent No.4. On 30.08.2019 petitioner lodged complaint
before the Joint Labour Commissioner asserting that his
resignation was not voluntary and the said complaint is pending.
The present writ petition is also filed raising similar allegations.
24. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that writ petition is not
maintainable as the respondent No.4 is not a State entity. The
relationship between petitioner and respondent No.4 is purely a
Service Contract. On the same dispute, petitioner has already
approached Joint Labour Commissioner who is conducting enquiry
and the case is pending. Petitioner submitted resignation in the
year 2018 and six (6) years after his resignation, instant writ
petition is filed. Petitioner lodged complaint before the Labour
Commissioner in 2019 and criminal complaint in 2021. After three
(3) to four (4) years, petitioner filed present writ petition. Learned
Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Zahid Showkat Alias Mir v. Joint Secretary, Prime Ministers
Office & Ors. (arising out of W.P.(C) No.493 of 2024 dated
20.09.2024).
25. Petitioner submitted that matter requires a detailed hearing
and writ petition cannot be dismissed summarily. Petitioner also
filed memos dated 25.09.2024 vide USR Nos.93043 and 93047.
Along with memos petitioner filed judgments of the Supreme
Court in M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and Taxation
Officer-cum-Assessing authority and others (arising out of Civil
Appeal No.5393 of 2010) and Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors 1. In another memo, petitioner
stated that as per the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977, respondents
have to file counter in accordance with Rule 12(1)(a), thus,
attempts made by counsel for respondent No.4 raising preliminary
objection without filing counter cannot be accepted by the Court.
Petitioner submitted that respondents may be directed to file
counter and petitioner be given fair opportunity to reply to their
counter and requested to keep the writ petition pending in the
interest of justice.
26. The contention of learned Senior Counsel that petitioner has
already approached the Joint Labour Commissioner in the year
2019 regarding termination of service/resignation is not rebutted by
the petitioner. Petitioner has given detailed narration of his
employment with respondent No.4 and manner in which his
services were utilised by respondent No.4. Though, petitioner has
not spelt out actual grievance he has with respondent No.4 and
reasons which lead to his resignation on 20.08.2018, he contended
2003 (2) SCC 107
that he was made a scapegoat and there is allegation that there is
leakage of confidential data which is wrongly attributed to him.
Further, negative appraisals were given against the petitioner by
the managers and reportees.
27. It is further contended that several complaints lodged by the
petitioner are not properly investigated in accordance with
Microsoft's Standard of Business Conduct. Petitioner submitted
that respondent No.4 was rendering services to the Government
relating to Education Policy, Aadhar cards etc and thus respondent
No.4 was discharging public duties and thus amenable to writ
jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 is a State
within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
28. It is necessary to point out that respondent No.4 is a private
company wherein petitioner was earlier employed and later
resigned on 20.08.2018. Respondent No.1 is parent company of
respondent No.4. Petitioner has no privity of contract with
respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are Chief Legal
Officer and Chief Human Resource Officer of respondent No.1 -
company. The contention that respondent No.4 is a 'State' as they
are providing software services to the State Education Department
and other departments is also without any substance. The
respondent No.4 is a private entity and not discharging any public
functions, thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Thus, writ
petition is totally mis-conceived so far as respondent Nos.1 to 4 are
concerned.
29. By placing reliance on Harbanslal Sahnia's case(supra 1) ,
petitioner contended that even in the case of private companies
when there is violation of principles of natural justice, the writ
petition is maintainable. However, it is not in dispute that
petitioner submitted resignation on 20.08.2018 and after six (6)
years petitioner has approached this Court. In the interregnum
petitioner has also approached the Joint Labour Commissioner who
is seized of the complaint of the petitioner. Having approached the
Joint Labour Commissioner and still pursuing the said matter,
parallelly the petitioner has resorted to filing this writ petition.
Thus, judgment in Harbanslal Sahnia's case (supra 1) is not
helpful to the petitioner. The judgment in M/s. Godrej Sara's
case (supra) arise out of dispute under Haryana value added tax and
not applicable to the facts of the case.
30. In Zahid Showkat Alias Mir's case (supra), it was held that
writ petition is not maintainable when services of the petitioner
therein were terminated and his grievance was being adjudicated
before the Labour Court and that the cause of action arose out of
contract of employment with a private employer.
31. The other contention raised by the petitioner that respondent
No.4 is bound to file counter is untenable. This Court cannot
compel respondent No.4 to file counter, moreover, when
preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of writ
petition. Insofar as criminal complaint lodged by the petitioner is
concerned, already order dated 08.08.2024 has been passed by this
Court to conduct investigation and petitioner was directed to
approach respondent No.9 - the Station House Officer, Gachibowli
Police Station, with necessary documents/evidence and on receipt
of the same, respondent No.9 shall conduct investigation in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh2. The
respondent No.9 shall proceed with enquiry/investigation as
directed by the order dated 08.08.2024.
32. In the light of the above observations, the writ petition is
dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
October 14, 2024
MS
(2014) 2 SCC 1
