Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
D.Karnan – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Co.op Joint Reg – Respondent
Suspension - Superannuation - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983 - Sections 81, 82, 87 - The court found that suspending the petitioner on the date of superannuation was illegal and upheld the principle that retirement benefits should not be withheld based on pending surcharge proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Secretary in a Co-operative Society, was suspended on the date of superannuation due to ongoing enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. He challenged the legality of this suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the suspension was arbitrary, not complying with guidelines that discourage last-minute suspensions on retirement dates, and held that retiral benefits should not be affected by pending enquiries.
Issues: Whether the suspension of the petitioner on the date of retirement was lawful and if the withholding of retirement benefits was justified given the pending surcharge proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the suspension on the retirement date contravenes established guidelines and that pending disciplinary proceedings should not delay the release of retirement benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed; the suspension was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be allowed to retire and receive his benefits.
O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Selva Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1592/2024/A2 (PoPaNi) dated 30.04.2024 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to relieve him on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from the afternoon of 30.04.2024 and to pay the retirement benefits within a stipulated time.
3. The petitioner who was working as a Secretary in the third respondent Co-operative Society has been placed under suspension exactly on the date of his superannuation.
4. Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned order it is alleged that since enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 has been initiated against the petitioner, he is placed under suspension. It is his submission that even though surcharge proceedings have been initiated and if surcharge is determined, that can be recovered as that of revenue recovery and for that there is no necessity to place the petitioner under suspension.
5. The issue on hand is no more res integra. It has already been decided by this Court in an earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11911 of
2024 dated 19.06.2024, wherein, this Court has held as under.
"4. Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the respondents came to know about the alleged deficiencies in the stock during the year 2021 itself, they have placed the petitioner under suspension only on the date of his superannuation, which is illegal. The petitioner's retiral benefits like Provident Fund and Gratuity are not liable for attachment and even for any extraneous reasons, if the respondents hold a surcharge proceedings that will not have any impact upon the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Even though the audit report for the year 2021 was available to the respondents, immediately after the audit was over, no action has been taken so far against the petitioner by alleging that there were deficiencies in the stock for which he was incharge.
5. However, it is stated in the impugned order that proceedings under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 will be initiated to determine the loss caused by the petitioner. Even though such proceedings are pending, that cannot have any relevance to withhold the petitioner's retiral benefits by placing him under suspension. In such case, the petitioner can be allowed to retire subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 87 of the , 1983. Since the recovery of surcharge is like that of a revenue recovery, the respondents shall not withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner by stating that there might be liability fixed upon the petitioner in the ensuing surcharge proceedings.
6. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N), Department, dated 08.06.2007, the Government servant shall not be placed on suspension at the verge of the retirement. For a better clarity, the guidelines issued in the said Government Order are extracted hereunder.
“5. The Government direct that the following guidelines be followed to avoid suspension orders on the date of retirement of the Government servants in super session of orders issued in the reference second read above.
(i) The Disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute suspension of the Government servants (i.e) on the date of their retirement. A decision either to allow Government servant to retire from service or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance (i.e) three months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation and orders issued in the matter and such a decision should not be taken on the date of retirement, if final orders could not be issued in a pending disciplinary c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
