Public Servants Deemed To Be In Service Until Closing Hours, Can't Walk Away To Claim Cessation Of Employment: Madras High Court

Highlighting that the petitioner had "surreptitiously" disappeared from office mid-afternoon to avoid receipt of the memo, the Bench held that the respondents had taken all possible steps—including electronic mail, registered post, and affixation at his residence—to effectuate service, and thus refused to quash the enquiry proceedings.​

The Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed, “Every public office transacts business till the closing hours in the evening and till that time, every public servant, including the petitioner is deemed to be a public servant. The petitioner cannot walk away from office at any time he pleases and claim that he was no longer in service.”

Advocate P Rajendran appeared for the Petitioner, while CGSC V. Chandrasekar appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner was an IAS officer of the 1982 batch belonging to the Madhya Pradesh cadre, having served for over 33 years. He was scheduled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on August 31, 2015, while holding the post of Principal Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. On his final day of service, the petitioner attended office until 2:00 p.m. and formally submitted his handing-over-charge forms at approximately 2:15 p.m.. Subsequently, a charge memo dated August 26, 2015, was issued against him regarding alleged irregularities during his tenure as Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust in 2005.

The authorities attempted to serve this memo on his last day of service by pasting it on his official residence at 3:00 p.m. and sending it via registered post and electronic mail. The petitioner challenged these proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai, in two Original Applications, both of which were dismissed.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Contention of the Parties

The petitioner contended that he had already demitted office at 2:15 p.m. on August 31, 2015, and therefore, the relationship of employer and employee had stood frustrated before the charge memo was served. It was argued that under Rule 8(5) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, a charge memo must be delivered in person, and alternate methods like pasting or email were insufficient and vitiated the proceedings.

It was further submitted that since he was neither suspended nor retained in service beyond superannuation, the initiation of disciplinary action after his "deemed retirement" was impermissible. The petitioner denied receiving the memo via email and claimed the "refused" endorsement on the registered post was incorrect, as he had already vacated his quarters.

The respondents maintained that the charge memo was issued on August 26, 2015, which was well before the petitioner's date of retirement. They contended that because the petitioner was not present in his office after 2:00 p.m. on his final day, personal service was impossible, necessitating the panchanama procedure of pasting the notice at his residence. It was argued that sufficient steps, including electronic communication and registered post, were taken to ensure the delivery of the charges.

Observations of the Court

The Court disagreed with the Petitioner’s contention that he had signed this document; he must be deemed to have retired on and from 02.00 p.m., on 31.08.2015.

During the course of proceedings, the Court called for the records for pasting the charge memo in the official residence of the petitioner. In this regard, the Court observed that a charge memo can only be served in person if the officer is physically present to receive it. It criticized the petitioner’s conduct, noting that a public servant cannot be absolved of their duty to remain in office until closing hours simply by attending a farewell function or submitting handing-over forms early.

The Bench said that the petitioner’s departure from office at 2:15 p.m. was a "surreptitious" attempt to avoid service. The Court held that such a deliberate disappearance does not invalidate the service of notice, as an officer is deemed to be on duty until the end of the official working day.

“We hold that the petitioner was aware of the charge memo and had deliberately avoided receipt of the same. We further hold that the respondents had taken all possible steps to serve the charge memo on the petitioner by sending it by electronic mail, by trying to serve it in person during the office hours and by affixing the charge memo in the official residence of the petitioner and by sending it by registered post to the official residence. The charge memo sent through registered post had been returned with the endorsement “refused”. This would only indicate that the petitioner had deliberately refused to receive the charge memo. We hold that the charge memo had been served on the petitioner…We hold that the petitioner had deliberately avoided receiving the charge memo. The claim that he was busy in handing over the charge and in attending the farewell function and therefore, could not check his personal e-mail address are all rejected by us,” the Court observed.

The Court held that there was no ground for quashing the charge memo or the enquiry proceedings.

Accordingly, it refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and hence, dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: K Suresh v. Union of India and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1335]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate P Rajendran

Respondents: CGSC V. Chandrasekar

Click here to read/download the Order