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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...