Employer Should Not Suspend Employee On Verge Of Retirement, Will Not Be In Public Interest: Madras High Court Reiterates

Justice RN Manjula observed that suspending the employee and issuing a charge memo after a considerable time would not only be a mockery but would also cause inconvenience to the Government and discourage the morale of the Government employees who rendered their services till the attainment 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 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 court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by K Saravanan challenging the charge memo issued by the Joint Director of School Education. Saravanan argued that he was issued with the order of suspension exactly on the date of his superannuation and even at that time he was not given the charge memo. He argued that charges had been issued to satisfy third parties who had animosity with him.

The department however argued that Saravanan had fraudulently secured employment and that suppression of material fact was a serious flaw.

The court noted that the action was not initiated suo motu at the instance of the Government but on receiving a complaint from third parties. The court noted that it was a typical case where the powers of the Government were exercised in a way prejudicial to the interest of the employee.

The court observed that the Department's delayed action was in complete contradiction to its own Government orders which would vitiate all the subsequent proceedings including the charge memo. The court added that allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would only be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. The court added that there could not be any other mental agony to an employee than placing him under suspension exactly on the date of superannuation.

The court thus allowed the petition and quashed the charge memo issued by the department. The court also directed the department to permit Saravanan to retire with all attendant benefits and release the terminal benefits within a period of six weeks.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.Sathish Babu

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 201

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

Case No: W.P.(MD) No.26571 of 2022