'A mockery': Madras HC quashes suspension order issued to govt employee on his retirement day

CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday quashed an order suspending a government employee on the date of his superannuation and directed the State to release all attendant benefits to him including terminal benefits within six weeks.

Justice RN Manjula wrote that time and again, it is held that an employer should not resort to the practice of suspending an employee on the date of his retirement or on the verge of his retirement. She was hearing a petition seeking to quash the suspension order.

The judge cited the Supreme Court order in the PV Mahadevan vs Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board case to write that departmental proceedings at the time of retirement of the petitioner were prejudicial to the employee and such a practice should be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but also in public interest.

The judgement mentioned that after having allowed the petitioner to complete their service, now the respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension and issued a 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", wrote the judge.

The judge further added 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, and held that the suspension order issued by the school education department is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

Justice RN Manjula also recalled that the government itself had issued guidelines on June 8, 2007, stating to not issue suspension orders to employees on the date of their retirement.

Petitioner K Saravanan had joined service in the school education department in 1989 on compassionate grounds.

The charges alleged against him were that he had gotten the compassionate appointment by suppressing the fact that his mother was in government service and by stating that his mother had deserted him when he was young.

In October 2022, on the retirement date of the petitioner, the joint director of the school education department issued a suspension order and withheld all the service benefits. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had moved the HC, seeking to quash the suspension order.