A government servant, who had put in 36 years of service, was placed under suspension on the day of his retirement for alleged malpractice that took place 11 years ago. He was issued a charge memo a year after the scheduled date of retirement.
The Madras High Court has now said this is prejudicial not only to the petitioner's interest, but also to public interest. In his order allowing a petition challenging the suspension and the charge memo, Justice V. Dhanapalan said that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court was that normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their own course.
But, when the delay caused prejudice to the charged official, and there was no proper explanation by the authority for the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Petitioner P. Chandrasekaran stated that he was appointed in the Tamil Nadu Agriculture Department as Agricultural Officer in September 1970. He served in various capacities and was to retire on March 31, 2006 when the Agriculture Secretary placed him under suspension. He was issued a charge memo dated January 24, 2007.
The charge was that while working as Deputy General Manager, TANCOF, during 1995-96, he connived with his subordinates and indulged in malpractice in the purchase and distribution of groundnut seeds and misappropriated government funds.
Mr. Justice Dhanapalan quashed the March 31, 2006 impugned orders and the charge memo of 2007.
