ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “ to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned suspension order vide Proc.No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 155/2025, dated 26.01.2025, charge Memo. No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 164/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo. No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 165/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo. No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 192/2025, dated 31.01.2025, and issuance of the said memos, based on the alleged WhatsApp messages are as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law, consequently, set aside the impugned suspension order, vide Proc.No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/155/2025, dated 26.01.2025, charge Memo.No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 164/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 165/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 192/2025, dated 31.01.2025, by reinstating the petitioner into service with full back wages and all consequential benefits and pass…..” 2. Petitioner was working as Head Warder at Special Sub- Jail, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Whileso, he was placed under suspension by impugned proceedings, dated 26.01.2025, on the allegations that he posted inappropriate and disrespectful message against an officer in Andhra Pradesh Jails Employees WhatsApp group, which is in violation of Rule 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1979. Further, that while having telephonic conversation with Sri M.R. Ravi Kiran, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Rajamahendravaram, he secretly recorded the same without aforesaid officer’s knowledge and posted in Andhra Pradesh Jails Employees WhatsApp group, which violated the right to privacy of the said officer, and lastly, he posted another message in the very same group defaming an officer that the said officer and his deceased mother played fraud on Government in getting Chief Minister Relief Fund, which yet again was construed to be a misconduct in violation of Rule 89 of the A.P. Prisons Rules, 1979 and Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The impugned orders came to be issued on 26.01.2025 when the said alleged acts are said to have been committed just a day before i.e. 25.01.2025. The 4 th respondent immediately on the next day issued charge memo, dated 27.01.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within five days from the date of receipt of such notice, which was served on 31.01.2025. The 4 th respondent immediately on the next day issued charge memo, dated 27.01.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within five days from the date of receipt of such notice, which was served on 31.01.2025. Meanwhile, petitioner submitted application, dated 27.01.2025, requesting for leave from 27.01.2025 to 02.02.2025 to attend his wife’s medical treatment, which came to be rejected by the 4 th respondent on the same day, as the said application did not contain necessary details. Petitioner stated to have been served another memo, dated 31.01.2025, with presumptuous and assumptuous allegations, aggrieved by the same, petitioner constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. The 4 th respondent filed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that petitioner while working as Head Warder in Special Sub-Jail, Bhimavaram, has been placed under suspension, by proceedings, dated 26.01.2025, and the allegations on which he has been placed under suspension are being enquired into. So far no charge-memo has been issued and the allegation that 4 th respondent issued charge memo, dated 27.01.2025 is misplaced as the said memo only requires the petitioner to submit certain information which is being collected in the process of enquiry. It is also stated that against the order of suspension, an appeal is provided before the appellate Authority under Rule 34(iii) of the A.P. Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, and so, petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal. So far as allegations are concerned, it is stated that based on news item telecasted on 21.01.2025 by Maha News Channel, which depicted that prisoner from semi-open prison, Rajamahendravaram, was shown entering into Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, enquired into said issue and found Head Warder to be responsible for recording such video from an electronic device and therefore, he was placed under suspension. In furtherance to said act, the petitioner responding to the statement said to have been made by Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, during such enquiry, a message was posted in the WhatsApp group on 25.01.2025 in a way demeaning in threatening tone the higher officer, which was in violation of Rule 89 of the A.P. Prison Rules, 1979. It is further stated that the petitioner further has recorded the conversation with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and posted in the WhatsApp group on the very same day. It is further stated that the petitioner further has recorded the conversation with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and posted in the WhatsApp group on the very same day. The petitioner has secretly recorded the private telephone conversation he had with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and posted the same in the very same group, which is in clear act of misconduct besides violating right to privacy of the said higher officer. It is further stated that yet another such message was posted in the WhatsApp group on the very same day making certain wild allegations against an officer and his mother committing fraud on Government in getting Chief Minister Relief Fund granted for medical treatment. All these incidents are in clear violation of various Rules of A.P. Prisons Rules, 1979, which call for severe punishment. It is also stated that though petitioner has been placed under suspension and directed not to leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission of 4 th respondent, in utter disregard and disobedience, petitioner moved out of the headquarters besides avoiding to receive the memos, dated 27.01.2025 and 31.01.2025, which also constituted yet another act of disobedience making him punishable. In fact, in the memo, dated 31.01.2025, 4 th respondent has also mentioned that petitioner was avoiding to receive the memos by not being available in the headquarters though his request for grant of leave was rejected and even 4 th respondent tried to serve the said memos through WhatsApp and having received the same, petitioner was not cooperating with disciplinary proceedings by not responding to the memo, dated 27.01.2025. Therefore, as the enquiry is pending and petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry, no interference is called for at this stage. 4. Petitioner filed reply-affidavit refuting the contents of the counter-affidavit, inter alia, stating that the disciplinary action initiated is in violation of principles of natural justice, as the same is not preceded by prior show-cause notice. It is further stated that petitioner is being victimized for being vocal and active in the employees group and the action is clearly tainted with mala fides. In the absence of there being any specific complaint by affected person or group member, the very initiation of enquiry proceedings is vitiated. It is further stated that petitioner is being victimized for being vocal and active in the employees group and the action is clearly tainted with mala fides. In the absence of there being any specific complaint by affected person or group member, the very initiation of enquiry proceedings is vitiated. It is also stated that even by going with the content of messages what has been posted, the same by itself would not constitute any violation of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further that as the messages are stated to be posted in private WhatsApp group, the same is not being in public domain, do not constitute misconduct and be a ground for disciplinary action. 5. Heard Sri Patanjali Pamidigantam, learned counsel, representing on behalf of Smt.Sridevi Jampani and learned Government Pleader for Services – I representing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Sri Patanjali Pamidigantam, learned counsel, appearing for Smt.Sridevi Jampani, contends that the impugned suspension order does not satisfy the requirements and ingredients of Rule 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 and further that the guidelines issued in Memo No.401/65-1, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 27.02.1965, were not taken into consideration while placing the petitioner under suspension. He further contended that the very basis of complaint is shady inasmuch as enquiry is based on a pseudonymous complaint and the complainant's details are unknown. Further it is also contended that the allegations levelled against petitioner being posting certain objectionable content in employees WhatsApp group, which group merely being a private platform, assuming that petitioner posted the said content, utmost the same would constitute petitioner's right to vent and such posts in private WhatsApp group without any access to public would not amount to derogatory attracting disciplinary action. Lastly, he contended that the proposed disciplinary action is not preceded by any prior show-cause notice and is merely to victimise petitioner for being vocal and active in employees' group, he has been suspended by higher authorities who acted with clear malafides. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgements: 1. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in A.Lakshminarayanan v. Assistant General Manager, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5314. 2. Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Retheesh v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16333. 7. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgements: 1. Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in A.Lakshminarayanan v. Assistant General Manager, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5314. 2. Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Retheesh v. Kerala State Electricity Board Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16333. 7. Opposing the aforesaid contention, learned Assistant Government Pleader at the outset submitted that the very writ petition itself is not maintainable as petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing Appeal under Rule 33 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. Insofar as the contention that impugned suspension should precede with show- cause notice, he submits that there is no necessity of issuing any prior show-cause notice before passing order of suspension and in support of which, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Mayuranathan v. State of Kerala and another , [(1961) ILLJ 260 KER] . Insofar as the contention regarding attributing malafides are concerned, he submits that pleadings lack specific allegations against any particular officer attributing such malafides. Finally, he justified the order of suspension stating that as petitioner prima facie involved in activities which demonstrably lack of integrity, indiscipline and behaviour unbecoming of a government employee, rightly was placed under suspension having regard to the gravity of charge. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in in M Hariya Naik v. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.P. No.13969 of 2020, dated 03.03.2021 8. Perused the record. Considered rival submissions made on either side. 9. Petitioner while working as Head Warder in Special Sub- Jail, Bhimavaram, has been placed under suspension by impugned proceedings. The allegations levelled against him are that he posted indecent, inappropriate and disrespectful message against particular officer in A.P. Jails Employees WhatsApp group. Further he also secretly recorded telephonic conversation which he had with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Rajamahendravaram, without said officer’s knowledge and posted the same again in the group and lastly, he posted a message defaming particular officer stating that said officer and deceased mother played fraud on Government in claiming C.M. relief fund. Further he also secretly recorded telephonic conversation which he had with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Rajamahendravaram, without said officer’s knowledge and posted the same again in the group and lastly, he posted a message defaming particular officer stating that said officer and deceased mother played fraud on Government in claiming C.M. relief fund. All these allegations are considered by respondents as demonstrably lacking integrity, indiscipline and behaviour of unbecoming of a Government employee, constituting misconduct and being in violation of Rule 89 of A.P. Prisons Rules, 1979 and Rule 3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The impugned order also records prima facie view that petitioner intentionally in order to spread hatred against the particular officer among other guarding staff members of the Prisons Department posted aforesaid contents, therefore, pending contemplation of disciplinary proceedings for aforesaid charges, he was placed under suspension. 10. Rule 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 deals with suspension pending enquiry, which reads as under: “ Suspension (8) (1) A member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service. (a) where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: [xxxx] The proviso omitted, (G.O.Ms.No.417, GA (Ser,C) Dept., dt: 24-08-94) (d) A Government Servant may be placed under suspension from service even if the offence for which he was charged does not have bearing on the discharge of his official duties. [Added by G.O.Ms. No. 27, G.A.D., dated 24-01-2002]". 11. One of the charges levelled against petitioner is that he contravened Rule of 3 of A.P.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964 besides Rule 89 of A.P. Prison Rules, 1979. In Bimal Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 126 , while considering the powers of disciplinary authority in placing delinquents under suspension, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “13. In Bimal Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 126 , while considering the powers of disciplinary authority in placing delinquents under suspension, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.” 12. Coordinate Bench of this Court in M Hariya Naik’s case (Supra 4) , after considering various precedents, has summarized law with regard to placing of delinquent under suspension. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “The power of suspension should, however, not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a vindictive misuse of power. A suspension order cannot be actuated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or be passed for an ulterior purpose. ( Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 ). An order of suspension should not be passed in a perfunctory or in a routine and casual manner but with due care and caution after taking all factors into account. ( Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s case ). It should be made after consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The authority should also take into account all available material as to whether, in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. ( Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s case ). Ordinarily, an order of suspension is passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated, and the nature of the evidence placed before it, on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Whether the employee should or should not continue in office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the concerned authority. Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the power of judicial review. Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the power of judicial review. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law or formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. Each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. Even if the present case is examined based on the law referred above, the Court must be slow in interfering with such suspension orders. When the competent authority recorded its satisfaction based on the material placed before him along with the complaint that itself suffice to place a Government servant under suspension. Though the effect of suspension is serious on the career of the employee but debarring him from discharging his duties temporarily is only to avoid his interference or continuously indulging in such activities prejudicial to the interest of the state. Normally, an appointing authority or disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission. The order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration of the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. It would not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose, the suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.” 13. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, against the impugned order, there is a remedy of appeal under Rules 33(1)(i) r/w 34(1)(iii) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, petitioner instead of availing the said remedy, rather approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled law that unless the case on hand falls within exceptions as carved out by this Court in catena of judgments, writ court shall not entertain writ petition when there is an efficacious and alternative remedy provided by Statute. It is well settled law that unless the case on hand falls within exceptions as carved out by this Court in catena of judgments, writ court shall not entertain writ petition when there is an efficacious and alternative remedy provided by Statute. The exceptions are that when the petitioners seek enforcement of any fundamental right, if there is a violation of principles of natural justice, if the order in challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or when vires of an enactment is under challenge. In the present case, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he would fall within any of the aforesaid exceptions except contending that the impugned suspension order does not meet the requirements of Rule 8(1) of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 and Memo dated 27.02.1965. Rule 8(1) contemplates different scenarios in which the employee can be placed under suspension from service. In the present case, there is an accusation against petitioner of secretly recording conversation with senior officer besides posting the same in WhatsApp group and also serious accusation of senior officer playing fraud on Government, which are matters to be examined during enquiry. As the employer felt that aforesaid allegations being severe in nature, required enquiry and investigation, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings, it was decided to place petitioner under suspension. Rule 8(1) does not contemplate issuance of any prior show-cause notice before placing delinquent officer under suspension. The said aspect is conclusively decided in Mayuranathan’s case (supra 3). Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in invoking powers under Rule 8(1). On this sole ground, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 14. Since this Court has also heard parties on other legal submissions, in particular that of whether posting of certain content in private WhatsApp groups amounts to right of vending and such postings in private WhatsApp group does constitute infringement of personal rights, it is necessary to dealt with the said aspect in the present case. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Lakshminarayanan ’s case (supra 1), in particular, Paras 10, 11 and 12. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Lakshminarayanan ’s case (supra 1), in particular, Paras 10, 11 and 12. The aforesaid judgment came to be considered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in V.P.Murugan v. Joint Director of Agriculture and another, WP (MD) No.24758 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.20972 of 2023, dated 15.12.2023 , distinguishing the same with reference to the facts arising thereunder, held in Paras 16, 17 and 18 as under: “16. It is no doubt true that any citizen including a Government Servant would have a right to bring it to the notice of the Government about the corrupt activities of an official. However, it has to be done through proper channel.Then only the affected officials would have an opportunity to defend themselves. In case, if it is circulated as a message in a WhatsApp or to other individual employees, the official who is not part of that group would be put to great hardship without having an opportunity to defend himself. 17. The right to vent as expressed in the judgement cited supra, could only be invoked only when the messages are shared or forwarded in a WhatsApp group relating to the service condition of the employees. On the other hand, if the messages are uploaded touching upon the character and conduct of another employee who is not part of the group, the principle of right to vent cannot be invoked. 18. In view of the above said factual distinction, this Court is not in a position to follow the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgement cited supra. The charge memo has been attacked also on the ground that it has been issued by the same official against whom the allegations have been made in the WhatsApp group. A perusal of the WhatsApp messages would clearly indicate that the petitioner had made allegations without naming the officer or his designation. Therefore, the said contention is liable to be rejected.” 16. A perusal of the WhatsApp messages would clearly indicate that the petitioner had made allegations without naming the officer or his designation. Therefore, the said contention is liable to be rejected.” 16. Keeping the aforesaid judgments in view, in the facts of present case, petitioner has posted the content as alleged in no doubt a private WhatsApp employees group which consisted of around 900 members, the content posted definitely do not relate to either grievances, difficulties or issues arising out of their employment but rather prima facie demonstrably relate to serious accusations against higher officers. Petitioner went a further step ahead in recording private conversation without knowledge of the superior officer and posted the same in the group, which is a serious act of infringing into privacy and violating personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. It is apt to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India and Anr, 1997 (1) SCC 301 , wherein Paras 17, 18 and 19 reads as under: “ 17. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed “except according to procedure established by law”. 18. The right to privacy — by itself — has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone conversation is a part of modern man's life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone conversation is a part of modern man's life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law. 19. Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This freedom means the right to express one's convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picture, or in any other manner. When a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression. Telephone-tapping unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2) would infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.” 18. In the present case, petitioner has not only indulged in secretly recording conversation had with superior which itself is impermissible, also posted the said content in WhatsApp group. The other accusation made against him that he had posted message against an officer that he played fraud on Government in claiming CM relief fund, is also serious in nature. If at all petitioner had any such information or material, he definitely had option of red flagging the same through proper channel by submitting appropriate complaint, which he did not choose to. Petitioner as passing argument tried to contend that the impugned act of suspension is tainted by malafides, this Court is not persuaded by the said submission, as nowhere in the pleadings petitioner attributed such malafides to particular officer nor any such officer has been arrayed as party respondent. Such wild and bald allegations unsubstantiated by specific pleadings cannot be countenanced. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned suspension order. The order specifically records allegations against petitioner, the intention of initiating disciplinary action, the effect of posting such messages on guarding staff members, who accessed the posts. Since petitioner is working in discipline force, is expected to discharge duties with utmost care and caution particularly when dealing with superior officers. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s case and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Since petitioner is working in discipline force, is expected to discharge duties with utmost care and caution particularly when dealing with superior officers. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s case and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending for consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.