Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice A.D. Maria Clete, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
Matrimonial Disputes Amount To Misconduct Under Service Rules, Government Can Initiate Disciplinary Action: Madras High Court
|A contractual Dental Assistant was disengaged after involvement in a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute.
The Madras High Court has held that matrimonial disputes involving public servants may be treated as misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, thereby empowering government departments to initiate disciplinary proceedings in such cases.
A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice A.D. Maria Clete held, “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.”
Advocate V. Om Prakash appeared for the Appellants, and Advocate K.R. Laxman appeared for the Respondent.
Background:
The case arose from an appeal filed by the Executive Secretary of the District Health Society/Deputy Director of Health Services, challenging the decision of a single-judge bench. The single judge had earlier ruled in favor of the respondent a contractual Dental Assistant holding that a criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute should not be considered a barrier to continuing employment in government service on a contractual basis.
The respondent was initially appointed on a one-year contract at a Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre. His tenure was periodically renewed. However, when he became involved in a criminal case linked to a matrimonial dispute, the department decided to disengage him from service.
Challenging his disengagement, the respondent approached the High Court through a writ petition, arguing that the pending criminal proceedings did not justify termination of his contractual role. The single-judge bench agreed, holding that the mere existence of a criminal case in the context of a domestic issue did not disqualify him from contractual government employment.
Findings:
The Division Bench disagreed with the single judge’s ruling, stating that the decision did not align with the service rules and established principles of public service conduct. The Court underlined that any act, even in a personal capacity such as a matrimonial dispute, could be treated as misconduct if it casts a shadow on the integrity and conduct expected from a government employee.
Moreover, the Bench noted that the respondent’s contract had already expired and that the disengagement was not arbitrary but aligned with both the end of his contractual term and his involvement in a criminal case arising from a domestic issue. The Court made it clear that a government department is within its rights to consider such factors when evaluating whether to renew a contract or continue employment.
In view of these observations, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that matrimonial disputes may be valid grounds for disciplinary action if they reflect negatively on the conduct of a public servant.
The Court observed, “Pertinently, in the present case, the respondent was engaged as a contractual employee and the period of contract was also expired and the respondent was disengaged in the year 2017 itself. Thus, the writ order is not inconsonance with the principles established.”
The order of the single judge was therefore set aside, reaffirming the department’s authority to act in accordance with conduct rules even in cases involving contractual employees.
Cause Title: The Executive Secretary of District Health Society & Ors. v. K.S.Subha Karuthukhan, [2025:MHC:1398]