Madras High Court said: Use of mobile phones in government offices is a serious misconduct

The Madras High Court has termed the use of mobile phones and video-making inside government offices as "serious misconduct" and directed the Tamil Nadu government to issue appropriate directions to regulate their use during working hours. Justice SM Subramaniam also directed to take strict action against violation of circulars/directives in this regard. The court gave this direction on a plea by a state government official challenging his suspension for making videos of his colleagues during working hours.

Madras High Court said: Use of mobile phones in government offices is a serious misconduct
 
An altercation reportedly broke out with Dio and one person was also injured in this. Justice Subramaniam said the court could not inquire into the allegations which had gone to the disciplinary authority for investigation. Since allegations and counter allegations have been made, the Competent Authority will have to conduct a detailed investigation on the basis of available documents and evidence, as the allegations are serious in nature. 

He said, this court is of the view that while use of mobile phones by public servants during working hours is common nowadays, using mobile phones and making videos inside the office is a serious misconduct. Officers working in government departments should never be allowed to use mobile phones inside the office for their personal use. 

He said that if it is very necessary to go out of the office and use the mobile phone, proper permission should be taken from the senior officers. 

Justice Subramaniam said that the government should take serious note of this and first the respondent-Govt., Secretary, Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare should issue appropriate circulars/directions to all government offices to ensure that the office Mobile phones should be kept in a cloakroom when entering and in case of emergency the official numbers of the office should be used. The court while passing the order refused to grant relief to the petitioner.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post