Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently set aside the suspension order issued again a government employee on the date of his superannuation.

The bench of Justin RN Manjula passed the order in a writ petition move by the suspended employee.

The petitioner secured employment on compassionate grounds on October 18, 1989.

Allegedly, at the time of his appointment, the petitioner suppressed the fact that his mother was in government service. Instead he claimed that she had deserted him when he was young.

From the year 1989 till his date of superannuation, no action was taken against the petitioner on the above allegations.

However, having allowed the petitioner to complete his entire tenure of service, the Joint Director of School Education, (Personnel), Chennai, placed him under suspension on the date of superannuation and did not permit him to retire.  

Even on the day when the petitioner was suspended, he was not given with the charge memo and it was only issued to him twenty days later.

In the order rejecting the petitioner's superannuation, it was stated that until the enquiry into grave charges pending against him gets concluded, he will not be allowed to retire.

The petitioner's counsel alleged that the charges had been issued against the petitioner just to satisfy some third parties who were inimical to the petitioner and therefore had sent complaints to the department. 

On the other hand, the government advocate argued that the suppression of material facts is a serious flaw and the respondents could not act in support of a person, who had fraudulently secured an employment.

The single judge bench highlighted that the action against the petitioner had not been taken suo motu by the government rather on receiving certain complaints from the third parties and after the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation.  

Time and again, it is held that an employer should not resort to the practice of suspending an employee on the date of his retirement or at the verge of his retirement and initiate disciplinary proceedings after lapse of considerable time, the bench stressed.

It referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005(4) CTC 403, that initiating departmental proceedings at the time of retirement of the petitioner is prejudicial to him and such a practice should be avoided not only in the interest of the Government employee, but also in public interest.

Further, court pointed out that the Government itself has issued guidelines in G.O(Ms)No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N), Department dated 08.06.2007, not to issue suspension orders to the employees in the last minute i.e., on the date of their retirement.

The single judge bench held that the petitioner was placed under suspension completely in contradiction with the above guidelines.

"When the suspension order itself is illegal, it is needless to state that the consequential charge memo at this distant point of time i.e., nearly after 25 years of time, is also thoroughly illogical," court held.

Court said that the action of the government was "a mockery and that would not only cause inconvenience to the Government but also discourage the morale of the Government employees who rendered their services, till the date of attaining the age of superannuation".

Hence, court allows the petition and set aside the impugned order of suspension, and the charge memo.

It directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from his superannuation day with all attendant benefits and release the terminal benefits.

Case Title: K.Saravanan Vs. The Joint Director of School Education and Another