Skip to main content

Suspension on last day at work not illegal: HC

There is nothing illegal about government servants being placed under suspension on the last day of their service, the Madras high court has said, refusing to quash the suspension of a civil supplies officer on the eve of his retirement.

Justice S Vaidyanathan, dismissing the petition filed by V Murugan, who was slapped with five charges a few days ahead of his April 1, 2015 retirement and placed under suspension on March 30, said: "There is no hard and fast rule that an employee cannot be placed under suspension on the last day of his service. If the prayer of this petitioner is allowed, then persons like him may commit misconduct during the last month of their service and take a plea that no charge memo or suspension order can be levied against the employee."

As long as there is an employee-employer relationship, the employer has got every right to issue charge memo and place the employee under suspension and proceed against the employee as per rules and regulations, Justice Vaidyanathan said.

Murugan challenged validity of charge memos dated March 6 and 27, and the suspension order dated March 30. He wanted the court to quash the orders, and direct the authorities to extend all monetary benefits, pending salary, leave benefits and all other terminal benefits with continuity of service to him.

The department, however, submitted that Murugan was issued charge memos in the first week of March, 2015 and one day prior to his retirement, he was placed under suspension. Noting that the regional manager of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation was competent to issue suspension orders, it said one of the five charges against Murugan was that even without attending the office he signed the attendance register.

Justice Vaidyanathan, asking the authorities to review the suspension order periodically, said the authorities could issue him a chargesheet and complete inquiry "as early as possible, preferably within one year." It is also open to the authorities to conduct the inquiry proceedings on day-to-day basis, he said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Suspension-on-last-day-at-work-not-illegal-HC/articleshow/47401699.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even