The Madras High Court has reiterated that an employer cannot suspend an employee on the date of their retirement or at the verge of their retirement and initiate disciplinary proceedings after a considerable amount of time has passed. Justice RN Manjula observed that suspending an employee and issuing a charge memo after a significant delay would not only be a mockery but would also cause inconvenience to the government and discourage the morale of government employees who have served until their superannuation.
The court emphasized that this practice goes against the guidelines issued by the government itself in G.O(Ms)No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N), Department dated 08.06.2007, which explicitly state not to issue suspension orders to employees on the date of their retirement.
Case Background and Court’s Decision
The court was hearing a petition filed by K Saravanan, who challenged the charge memo issued by the Joint Director of School Education. Saravanan argued that he was suspended on the exact date of his superannuation and was not given the charge memo at that time. He further contended that the charges were issued to satisfy third parties who had animosity towards him.
The department argued that Saravanan had fraudulently secured employment and that the suppression of material facts was a serious flaw. However, the court noted that the action was not initiated by the government itself but rather in response to a complaint from third parties. The court considered this a 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 contradicted its own government orders, which would invalidate all subsequent proceedings, including the charge memo. Allowing the departmental proceedings to continue would only be prejudicial to the petitioner’s interest. The court also highlighted that placing an employee under suspension on the exact date of superannuation would cause significant mental agony.
Court’s Decision and Directions
Based on the above considerations, the court allowed the petition and quashed the charge memo issued by the department. Additionally, the court directed the department to permit Saravanan to retire with all attendant benefits and release the terminal benefits within six weeks.
In summary, the Madras High Court has reaffirmed that employers should not suspend employees on the date of their retirement or at the verge of their retirement and initiate disciplinary proceedings after a considerable amount of time has passed. This ruling aims to prevent inconvenience to the government and protect the morale of government employees who have served until their superannuation.
I appreciate the judgement