Latest news with #TamilNaduGovernmentServants'ConductRules
New Indian Express
08-08-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
TN school teacher denied increment for three years for ‘expressing views' on social media
CHENNAI: Makkal Kalvi Kootiyakkam, on Thursday, condemned the alleged denial of increment for a three-year period to government school teacher Uma Maheswari who was suspended in March last year for expressing her views on social media and in the press. The suspension was revoked within a few days following backlash from activists. According to the organisation, Uma Maheswari was suspended in March 2024 after education officers from Chengalpattu conducted an inquiry. During the inquiry, she was allegedly forced to delete her social media posts and was questioned on why she was writing on social media and in newspapers. The suspension order issued by the Chengalpattu chief educational officer stated she had violated the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973. Though the suspension was revoked in a few days, the school education department had issued her a charge memo stating disciplinary action would be taken against her. In a letter dated June 23 this year, the department informed her she was being penalised with an increment cut for three years. The organisation said the punitive action initiated against her violated her right to free speech. The statement was endorsed by several eminent personalities, including retired judge of the Madras HC Justice D Hariparanthaman and former V-C Jawahar Nesan. 'The punishment has been issued citing her article titled 'Changes Needed in the Morning Breakfast Scheme'. In the piece, she not only praised the CM for launching the scheme but also highlighted the need to expand it to government-aided schools, a widely shared demand,' said P Sivakumar, coordinator of Makkal Kalvi Kootiyakkam.
The Hindu
18-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
DIG recommends suspension of DSP for remarks against top police officers
: After conducting a preliminary inquiry, Ziaul Haque, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Thanjavur Range, has recommended the suspension of M. Sundaresan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing (PEW), Mayiladuthurai District, who had made scathing remarks against some top police officers, sources said on Friday. A day after Mr. Sundaresan at a press meet accused senior officers of harassing him, the inquiry was conducted by the DIG, who recorded the statements of Mayiladuthurai Superintendent of Police G. Stalin and a few other police personnel in the district, the sources said. In his statement, Mr. Stalin said the DSP had falsely claimed that he had registered 1,120 cases and arrested more than 700 prohibition offenders, 'though he has not arrested a single person'. By giving a press meet on July 17, 2025, the officer had violated provisions under Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, the sources quoted the inquiry officer as saying. Statements were also recorded from other police personnel attached to the PEW, in which they levelled various allegations against Mr. Sundaresan. The inquiry officer said only the Superintendent of Police in District, and Commissioners of Police in Cities were authorised to conduct press meet and issue press notes. Mr. Sundaresan had violated the procedure by addressing journalists without getting permission. 'Violated rules' The sources said the DIG, in his report to the Inspector-General of Police, Central Zone, had stated that the behaviour and conduct of the DSP 'betrayed his loyalty towards the organisation for which he worked'. On many occasions, he had openly displayed disobedience and insubordination of the authority of the SP. Instead of opting to utilise the grievance redress mechanism in the department, he had sought to address the media to make 'baseless allegations against senior officers.' The actions of the DSP not only impacted the morale and discipline of the force, but also tarnished its image, the DIG said in his report, and recommended that in view of the 'violations and transgressions of the rules of conduct prescribed to be followed by an officer of Tamil Nadu Police service, suitable departmental action, preferably suspension, should be initiated against Mr. Sundaresan,' the sources said. Inquiry conducted Asked for his comments, a top police officer at the State police headquarters confirmed that the DIG, Thanjavur, had conducted an inquiry and sent a report to his superior officer. Appropriate action would be taken based on the remarks of the IGP, Central Zone, and other findings. Addressing the media in Mayiladuthurai on Thursday, Mr. Sundaresan levelled serious allegations against senior officers who, he said, were pushing the government to a tight corner. While Chief Minister M.K Stalin was delivering good governance, some officers were causing a bad name to the government. The DSP said he was ready to face suspension.
Time of India
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Matrimonial Dispute: Husband loses government job after wife wins case; Know how this impacts employees of private and government companies
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills How did this case start? January 28, 2013: A person got a government job working as a dental assistant in the state-run hospital. A person got a government job working as a dental assistant in the state-run hospital. July 13, 2017: The government dismissed this employee as he was deemed guilty in the matrimonial dispute case filed by his wife. The government dismissed this employee as he was deemed guilty in the matrimonial dispute case filed by his wife. February 1, 2018: This dismissed employee filed a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the writ court and the court ruled in his favour by saying matrimonial dispute may not be sufficient reason for misconduct. What did Madras High Court say? The respondent (employee) was appointed as a dental assistant for a period of one year on contract basis. The contractual engagement was renewed from time to time. The respondent (employee) was implicated in a criminal case. Thus, he was disengaged by the appellants (government) vide order dated 13.07.2017. The writ court formed an opinion that the criminal case registered in a matrimonial dispute may not be an impediment for continuance of the government contractual employment. Under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, matrimonial dispute is also a misconduct and the Government Departments are empowered to initiate action against such misconducts. A public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity and good conduct both inside the office and in the society. Therefore, for the misconduct, even if it is committed in the matrimonial relationship, the Government Departments are empowered to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings. What does Rule 19(2) of Tamil Nadu Government servants conduct rules say? Do other states also follow similar rules for their employees? What about private sector employees? Regulating an employee's conduct in their private life may be considered an overreach by the employer, and the information a private employer can seek from an employee is also strictly regulated by privacy law; and the practical difficulties posed by the private nature of such misconduct during disciplinary inquiries in terms of summoning witnesses, gathering evidence etc.' This judgement is a matter of interpretation A dismissed government employee fighting to be reinstated in his job for eight years, lost the case when the Madras High Court ruled against him on June 17, 2025. The reason the government employee lost his job in the first place was because his wife had filed a matrimonial dispute case against him and he had been implicated as a criminal in that case. The Madras High Court upheld this reason of dismissal- matrimonial dispute and ruled in the government's legal parlance, the Madras High Court ruled that matrimonial dispute should be treated as misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 allowing government departments to initiate disciplinary action against such misconduct of employees, once Madras High Court further said that a public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity and good conduct not just inside the office but outside as pointed out by lawyers, a point to be noted here is that private sector employers also initiates disciplinary action on their employees for matrimonial offences if there's a court conviction, and this trend is expected to reading to find out how this judgement affects employees, as lawyers informed ET Wealth Online that similar rulings (dismissal from job due to matrimonial disputes) have occurred in Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan and other the timeline of events according to the order of the Madras High Court dated June 17, 2025:This government filed an appeal against this order of the writ court in the Madras High to the order of the Madras High Court dated June 17, 2025, here's what the court said:Judgement: 'Accordingly, the writ order dated 01.02.2018, passed in W.P. (MD) No.248 of 2018, is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.'In this case cited here, the employee was dismissed due to violation of Rule 19(2).Vinay Joy, Partner at Khaitan & Co says: 'The judgment does not clearly specify the nature of the matrimonial misconduct the Madras High Court was addressing. Rule 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 can be interpreted to mean that acts involving moral turpitude within the marital sphere constitute misconduct. The primary misconduct contemplated under this rule is 'bigamy' which most states' government / civil servants' rules seem to prohibit.'Joy adds: 'While government / civil service rules typically classify specific matrimonial acts - such as bigamy, dowry, and neglect of wife and children (which, incidentally, are all offences in India in some form) - as misconduct, most state service rules do not contain the language around 'moral turpitude' like the one seen in the Tamil Nadu Rules. For example, the government service rules in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Telangana, Gujarat and West Bengal do not contain such language.'Joy adds that due to the lack of specific details around the facts contested here, it is unclear if the Court is simply referring to bigamy or to some other form of 'matrimonial dispute' of a similarly serious nature - or whether it is using the term 'matrimonial dispute' in its ordinary Choudhary, Associate, SKV Law Offices, says 'In addition to Tamil Nadu, several other states across India recognize matrimonial misconduct as valid grounds for disciplinary action against government employees. Jurisdictions such as Uttar Pradesh (as seen in Khursheed Khan V. State of Uttar Pradesh), Rajasthan (Laxman Singh V State of Rajasthan and Ors.), Karnataka, and Kerala have all upheld similar principles.'Aditya Chopra, founder and managing partner, The Victoriam Legalis says: 'As per the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, no government servant who has a wife, shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permissions of the Government provided that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such government servant. A similar rule exists for Uttar Pradesh as well under Section 29 of the UP Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956.'Choudhary says: 'Even where not expressly adjudicated, many state conduct rules—such as those in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and others—require prior permission of relevant authorities for remarriage. A violation of such provisions constitutes misconduct, thereby subjecting the employee to departmental proceedings.'Smriti Jaswal, Senior Associate, Accord Juris LLP, a law firm says: 'As far as the private corporations and its employees are concerned, they are bound by their own HR Rules, Regulations and Policies that have been laid down to maintain the integrity of their company that very strictly bind all its from Khaitan and Co says: 'We do see private employers initiating disciplinary action against employees in relation to matrimonial offences when the employee has been convicted by a court in relation to the same and the same is likely to continue being the practice.'Joy adds: 'Such instances in private sector employment are generally governed by contractual terms and standing orders / internal service rules, which, in my experience, typically do not regulate conduct in personal relationships / private life. They usually limit themselves to conduct during the course of, or in connection with, employment. This is for two main reasons:Jaswal says matrimonial dispute can be the reason behind denial of higher promotion in some companies. She says: 'Interestingly, some companies are promoting their employees to a senior level such as VP, etc after they conduct background checks and interview people in the employee's circle, as these officials in such senior positions are going to be representing products and act as the face of the company. Therefore, in the event in the private sector you want to climb up the ladder - there is no room whatsoever for any indiscretion and having a criminal record more specifically one where there is a matrimonial dispute, will reflect negatively on your leadership skills and your ability to maintain interpersonal relationships.'Kheyali Singh, Associate Partner, Singhania & Co, says: This judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court could be a milestone in the service law with regard to misconduct for being implicated in a matrimonial dispute. However, it is a matter of interpretation, and the said judgement could be challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.'Singh adds: 'There is no such rule in India, where matrimonial dispute is considered as misconduct due to which a government employee can face action like getting suspended or fired. There is no definition under the rules that considers implication in a matrimonial dispute as misconduct. The relevant rule is rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 which could be looked into. Further the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court is a matter of interpretation of the concerned service rules. There is no state which consists of any rule that getting involved in a matrimonial dispute is considered to be a misconduct. However, it is a matter of interpretation and if an FIR is registered and prosecution begins then the Department has the discretion to initiate disciplinary action against the delinquent employee.'
News18
20-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
Misconduct In Matrimonial Life Can Cost Government Job Too, Says Madras High Court
Last Updated: A public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity and good conduct both inside the office and in the society, the court observed The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that misconduct arising from personal matrimonial disputes, too, could be grounds for termination in government service, including contractual appointments. The judgment came in an appeal filed by the Executive Secretary of the District Health Society, Ramanathapuram, and other officials, who had challenged a 2018 single-judge order that reinstated KS Subha Karuthukhan, a dental assistant, who was disengaged following his involvement in a criminal case related to a matrimonial dispute. Karuthukhan had been working on a contractual basis at the Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre in Bogaloor. His services, originally for a one-year period, had been renewed periodically until 2017, when the authorities terminated his engagement following his implication in a criminal matter. The single judge bench, while ruling in his favour in 2018, had held that involvement in a matrimonial case should not become a roadblock for someone serving in a government post, particularly on a contractual basis. However, a division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Dr AD Maria Clete disagreed with this interpretation. Referring to the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, the court held that misconduct, even in personal relationships, can be considered a valid basis for departmental action. The bench emphasised that government employees—permanent or contractual—are expected to maintain integrity and good conduct not just within the office, but also in society. 'A public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity, and good conduct both inside the office and in the society," the court noted, underlining that such standards are not limited to official duties alone. Further, since the respondent's contract had already expired in 2017, the court said there was no question of reinstatement. The appeal was allowed, and the previous writ order was set aside. First Published: June 20, 2025, 18:22 IST
