Powers Of Govt Must Not Be Exercised In A Way Prejudicial To Employee’s Interest Whose Services Being Utilized For A Quarter Century: Madras HC
The Madras High Court remarked that the powers of the Government should not be exercised in a way prejudicial to the interest of an employee whose services have been utilized for a quarter century.
The Madurai Bench was dealing with a petition preferred by a man against the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai for a direction to permit him having retired from service with all attended benefits and continuity of service.
A Single Bench of Justice R.N. Manjula observed, “This is a typical case where the powers of the Government shall not be exercised in a way prejudicial to the interest of an employee whose services have been utilized for a quarter Century. So without any doubt, the impugned suspension order, dated 31.10.2022 and the charge memo, dated 10.11.2022 issued by the first respondent are illegal and are liable to be set aside.”
The Bench said that there cannot be any other mental agony given to an employee than by placing him under suspension exactly on the date of his superannuation.
Advocate N. Sathish Babu represented the petitioner while Government Advocate T. Amjadkhan represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner suffered with the order of suspension exactly on the date of his superannuation for the reason that some enquiry into grave charges was pending against him and the same was not concluded. He was issued with the charge memo subsequent to the order of suspension and the charges were to the effect that he got the Compassionate appointment by suppressing the fact that his mother was in Government service and by stating that she deserted him when he was young.
He secured employment on compassionate grounds in 1989 and till his date of superannuation, no action was taken against him on the allegations. Having allowed him to complete his entire tenure of service, the respondent chose to place him under suspension only on the date of superannuation and by not permitting to retire. He was not even given the charge memo on the day he was suspended and hence, he was before the High Court to quash the charge memo.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “In the case on hand, the petitioner was placed under suspension completely in contradiction with the above guidelines and the petitioner was issued with the suspension order exactly on the date of his superannuation and the charge memo has been given to him subsequently. … 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.”
The Court said that the delayed action initiated by the Government in complete contradiction to its own Government orders would vitiate all the proceedings including the impugned order of suspension and the charge memo, issued by the respondent.
“After having allowed the petitioner to complete the service, now the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and issued the charge memo stating that he has suppressed the material facts in securing the employment. Such kind of action itself is 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”, it added.
The Court observed that allowing the respondent to proceed with the Department proceedings would no doubt be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of suspension and charge memo, and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service with all attendant benefits and release the terminal benefits within 6 weeks.
Cause Title- K. Saravanan v. The Joint Director of School Education & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:1991)
