and better the organisation through proper channels. I must state, that I am conscious of the need for employees to air their grievances. However, the same be done in accordance with law and by utilising proper channels. There is a difference between an employee that flags issues through proper mechanisms in order to better the organisation, and an employee that directs abuse and criticism towards an organisation, in an unrestrained manner, with the intention to harm the reputation of the organisation. The present case clearly belongs to the latter category. I am of course, mindful of the legal position that the punishment that is imposed must be proportionate to the offence. In the present case, the Appellant has deliberately attempted to harm the functioning and reputation of NTPC, through the contents, mode of circulation and the number of recipients of the Jetter dated 26.04.2020. The Appellant has continued to display a nonchalant and unapologetic attitude towards his actions. In the current scenario, where competition is fierce, and goodwill, brand value and marketability have attained enormous importance, the need for preserving and enhancing the reputation of an organisation cannot be overstated. The actions of the Appellant would cause severe prejudice and harm to the NTPC. Therefore, the continuation of the Appellant as an employee, would not only give the wrong signal to other employees, giving rise to a chain reaction of insubordination and defamation, but would also continue to directly harm the reputation of the NTPC, as the Appellant is quite likely to continue with his transgressions in future. 1 am supported in this conclusion by the fact that even in the present Appeal, the Appellant has made no efforts to express remorse for his actions, or even attempt to offer a set of mitigating circumstances that would warrant reducing the punishment. In fact, the Appellant has so far even failed to give the semblance of an assurance that he would not repeat these transgressions in the future. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed by the Appointing Authority is entirely justified and necessary in the present case.
