Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ
The Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wings, Ser.2(1) Section, Secretariat, Chennai. – Appellant
Versus
A.Sahayaraj – Respondent
W.A.(MD)No.586 of 2021 | C.M.P.(MD)No.2651 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader.
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Baalasundharam, Senior counsel, for Mr.P.Paranjothi.

Suspended government employees cannot retire while under investigation, as per applicable rules.

Headnote:The court analyzed Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules regarding the suspension of a government employee facing criminal charges and the implications for retirement. The respondent, a suspended Deputy Collector, sought terminal benefits which were denied prior to his retirement. The single judge's ruling, which allowed his writ petition, was overturned as the relevant rule was applicable at the time. The court granted liberty to the respondent to seek remedies under the revised G.O.(Ms.)No.47 post the 2025 amendment, affirming the entitlement to all legally due payments.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case regarding retirement and suspension of government employee. (Para 2 , 3)
2. court's observations on the applicability of fundamental rules. (Para 4 , 5)
3. final ruling permitting statutory remedy. (Para 6)

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. The State is on appeal challenging the order dated

25.04.2019 passed by the learned single Judge allowing W.P.(MD)

No.8775 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein.

3. The respondent herein was working in the rank of Deputy Collector. He reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. On the eve of his retirement from service, he was placed under suspension. Allegations of serious misconduct were made against the respondent herein and he was also facing criminal prosecution in Crime No.16 of 2017 on the file of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thanjavur(subsequently taken on file in Special.C.C.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur. When a Government employee was placed under suspension and he was also facing criminal prosecution, he cannot be allowed to retire. Therefore, he was retained in service. The respondent herein, thereafter, submitted representation calling upon the Government to revoke the order retaining him in service and disburse all terminal benefits. His request was rejected vide letter dated 15.02.2019. That was put to challange in W.P.(MD)No.8775 of 2019. The learned single Judge relying on the earlier order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1485 of 2018 (The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 Vs. K.Sundaramoorthy) dated 31.07.2018 quashed the said letter dated

15.02.2019 and allowed the writ petition.

4. We are unable to endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge.

5. The precedent relied on by the learned single Judge pertains to disbursement of terminal benefits and not regarding retention of service. Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules categorically stated that a suspended Government servant against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the age of retirement. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent herein points out that this provision had been deleted vide G.O.(Ms)No.47 Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department dated 29.08.2025. That may be so but when the impugned order was passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition, Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fandamental Rules was very much holding the field. Therefore, we set aside the order passed in the writ petition.

6. We grant liberty to the respondent herein to seek remedy in terms of G.O.(Ms.)No.47 Human Resources Management (FR-III) Department dated 29.08.2025. The writ petitioner / respondent herein will be paid all the amounts to which he is legally entitled. This writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document