High Court quashes suspension of lower court employee

Says keeping an employee under suspension for a long period is not proper

The Madras High Court Bench here has quashed the suspension order of a lower court employee accused of reporting to duty before a Subordinate Judge in an inebriated condition. The Bench held that keeping an employee under suspension for nearly three years is not proper.

Allowing a writ petition filed by R. Inbasekaran, who was working as a Process Server under Padmanabhapuram Sub-Judge in Kanniyakumari district at the time of his suspension from service in July 2014, a Division Bench of Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and P. Velmurugan held that forcing the petitioner to remain under suspension any further would not be in accordance with law.

“After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the counter [affidavit] filed by the first respondent (Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kanniyakumari district), we are of the considered view that the prolonged suspension is not tenable. Courts have repeatedly held that an employee cannot be placed under prolonged suspension and that suspension orders should be reviewed periodically,” the judges said. They, however, refused to allow one more writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the charge memo issued to him in 2014. Stating that the grounds of challenge were all factual, the judges said: “Whether the petitioner is guilty of allegations made in the charge memo etc., are to be decided in the departmental enquiry.”

Taking note of the fact that an enquiry officer had already been appointed and the petitioner had submitted his explanation after receiving the charge memo, the judges directed the officer to complete the enquiry within four weeks.

Another case

In another case related to dismissal of a court employee from service on being found guilty of misappropriation of money, the judges refused to interfere with the dismissal order. They said the punishment could not be held to be disproportionate considering the gravity of charges and the petitioner’s plea for imposing lesser punishment could not be accepted.

They said the writ petitioner, S. Louis Thompson, had been appointed as Junior Assistant in Theni Principal District and Sessions Court in 1986 on compassionate grounds. In 2005, he was charged with not paying the court’s electricity bills on time, remitting government funds in bank accounts belatedly, making false entries in official records and failing to follow instructions on payment of compensation to litigants.

The petitioner admitted the charges in writing and pleaded for a lesser punishment without holding an enquiry.

Nevertheless, the Principal District Judge appointed an enquiry officer who found the petitioner guilty of all charges. Subsequently, the District Judge dismissed him from service in 2007 and the dismissal order was confirmed by the High Court’s Registrar General in 2010.

“The first respondent (Registrar General) has noted that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation of government funds and falsification of records, and in 66 cases the petitioner has effected payment to persons without any identification... Thus we find that there is no error in the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted,” the judges said while dismissing his writ petition pending since 2010.