109th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra2384611326259893 Tamil Nadu130261846941829 Delhi109140846943300 Gujarat40155281832023 Uttar Pradesh3370021787845 Karnataka3341811878471 Telangana3222410123339 West Bengal2710917348880 Andhra Pradesh2542213914292 Rajasthan2317417620497 Haryana1993414904290 Madhya Pradesh1665712481638 Assam15537984935 Bihar1433010251111 Odisha11956797273 Jammu and Kashmir92615567149 Punjab71404945183 Kerala6535370828 Chhatisgarh3526283514 Uttarakhand3305267246 Jharkhand3192217022 Goa203912078 Tripura177313241 Manipur14357930 Puducherry120061916 Himachal Pradesh110182510 Nagaland6733030 Chandigarh5234037 Arunachal Pradesh2871092 Mizoram2031430 Sikkim134710 Meghalaya113451
Nation Current Affairs 01 Dec 2019 Chennai: Sheristadar ...

Chennai: Sheristadar’s suspension on verge of retirement quashed

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN
Published Dec 1, 2019, 2:30 am IST
Updated Dec 1, 2019, 2:30 am IST
The bench directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to retire from service and settle all the terminal benefits.
Madras high court
 Madras high court

Chennai: The Madras high court has set aside an order of Principal District Judge, Erode, suspending a Sheristadar (chief officer in court) on the verge of his retirement and retaining him in service until the criminal case based on a complaint from a woman employee, alleging misconduct (he uttered offensive words against her in the office of the Magalir Neethimandram), is concluded and final orders are passed thereon.

A division bench comprising Justices R.Subbiah and T.Krishanavalli set aside the order dated March 28, 2018 while allowing a petition from K.Eswaramurthi.

 

The bench directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to retire from service and settle all the terminal benefits arising there from within 12 weeks.

While Eswaramurthi was working as Sheristadar at Fast Track Mahila Court, Erode, on the basis of a complaint from one Revathi, working as Xerox Operator, alleging misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was suspended and penalty of withholding his increment for 2 years was also imposed. Simultaneously, on a complaint from her, criminal proceedings were also initiated.

 

Subsequently the suspension period was regulated as earned leave. Challenging the penalty, he approached the high court, which directed the authorities to quantify the increment and deduct the same from the sum of Rs 2.43 lakh payable to him towards earned leave. While so, he was due to retire from service on March 31, 2018. At the verge of his retirement, he was suspended and retained in service citing pendency of the criminal case.

The bench said even before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were concluded and he was already mulcted with punishment of stoppage of increment for two years. While so, the outcome of the criminal proceedings in the present case against the petitioner will have no bearing on the petitioner in getting his terminal benefits. If at all the criminal proceedings ended in conviction, the petitioner has to undergo incarceration. While so, retaining the service of the petitioner and withholding the terminal benefits payable to him, when already he was imposed with punishment in the departmental proceedings would amount to double jeopardy, the bench added.

 

The bench said it was evident that Rule 56 (1) © of Fundamental Rules specifically states that if a government servant was facing departmental proceedings with respect to any misconduct, he shall not be permitted to retire from service to facilitate the employer to conclude the departmental enquiry.

Similarly, if the departmental proceedings were not initiated against a delinquent officer, but only criminal proceedings were initiated and pending trial, the employer was empowered to retain the services of the delinquent officer beyond the age of retirement. At the same time, Rule 56 (1) © can be pressed into service only when the departmental proceedings were not concluded or any punishment thereof was not imposed before the retirement. In the present case, already the petitioner was imposed with punishment in the departmental proceedings initiated against him. “By citing the pendency of criminal proceedings, the authorities are not justified in retaining the service of the petitioner beyond the age of retirement”, the bench added.

 

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT