Madras HC Keeps Inquiry Against Retired Employee Over Alleged Paddy-Procurement Fraud Alive, Orders Subsistence Pay And Completion Within 4 Months

The petitioner challenged a charge memorandum dated 18 April 2023 and sought to have the disciplinary proceedings dropped, contending that the respondent had not complied with an earlier court direction to complete the enquiry by 4 November 2024.

The respondent attributed delay to the petitioner’s legal proceedings, difficulties obtaining documents held by the CBCID in a related alleged procurement scam, and the petitioner’s non-cooperation.

The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 28 April 2025; the petitioner had meanwhile retired on 30 November 2024.

The petitioner also alleged non-payment of subsistence allowance.

Under Article 226, delay in disciplinary proceedings does not by itself require their termination; whether proceedings should be dropped depends on the circumstances of the particular case, as reflected in the authority relied on by the petitioner, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891.

The Court also applied the Division Bench’s interpretation in The Managing Director v. M. Ramalingam, W.A. No. 1552 of 2011 (8 September 2011): a provision for six months’ subsistence allowance is to be understood as requiring the employer to endeavour to complete disciplinary proceedings within that period, not as limiting payment to six months.

Relying on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, as discussed in A. Sivakumar v. The Management, 2026 MHC 94, the Court treated subsistence allowance as significant to an employee’s right to life.

The Court accepted that the respondent had delayed appointing an Enquiry Officer and had not sought an extension of the earlier deadline, but found no deliberate delay warranting termination of the proceedings.

It considered the alleged large-scale financial irregularities, the petitioner’s litigation and non-cooperation, and the fact that proceedings against the other 11 employees had been completed.

However, the petitioner had not been relieved from duty and could not readily take other employment; the Court therefore held that withholding subsistence allowance would affect his right to life, and directed payment notwithstanding his superannuation.

The respondent was ordered to complete the enquiry within four months of receiving the order and to pay any arrears of subsistence allowance within four weeks.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.