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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more