The Madras High Court has struck down departmental action against retired judicial employee, K.Sadhasivam after 24 years.
The Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima has observed that retired public servants cannot be subjected to departmental action for incidents that occurred more than four years prior to the issuance of a charge memo.
The bench while highlighting the importance of adhering to timelines prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 observed that departmental proceedings are formally considered instituted only on the date of issuing the statement of charges under Rule 9(6)(b). Any enquiries before retirement do not meet this criterion. In this case, the formal proceedings began on 21 August 2024—well after the petitioner had retired.
The case involved a judicial employee who had purchased two cents of land during his tenure. The employee retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on 31 May 2023. Following his retirement, a charge memo was served on him on 21 August 2024, and a departmental enquiry was initiated. The allegation in the charge memo stated that the petitioner had engaged in misconduct by acquiring land without prior sanction.
Challenging the charge memo, the retired employee filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The petitioner contended that departmental action post-retirement must comply with Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Rule 9(2)(b) prevents initiating proceedings for events occurring more than four years prior to the commencement of disciplinary action. No actual misconduct had occurred, as the rules only required the disclosure of immovable property acquisition, not prior approval.
The state argued that preliminary complaints and internal inquiries had been made before the petitioner’s retirement, forming part of the departmental process. Since the petitioner was under the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution, prior sanction from the State Government was unnecessary. Approval from the High Court itself was sufficient. The enquiry had been initiated promptly upon receiving the complaint, and the actions constituted misconduct.
The court held that the alleged misconduct dated back to 6 July 2000. Since the charge memo was issued nearly 24 years later, it clearly violated the four-year limit under Rule 9(2)(b), rendering the proceedings invalid.
The Court noted that due to the clear breach of the statutory timeline, there was no need to address other issues such as whether the act constituted misconduct or the necessity of government sanction.
The Madras High Court quashed the charge memo dated 21 August 2024, holding it contrary to the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and granted relief to the petitioner.
Case Details
Case Title: K.Sadhasivam Versus The Principal District Judge
Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.30511 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25634 of 2024
Date: 14.10.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: RV.Rajkumar
Counsel For Respondent: D.Venkatesh
Read More: TR-6 Challans Not Valid for Availing GST ITC: AAAR
