Employee Accused Of Embezzlement Must Be Kept Away From Establishment Till Enquiry Is Completed
Case: University of Calicut v. Mohamed Sajid T & Ors.
Coram: Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha
Case No.: WA NO. 130 OF 2022
Court Observation: “Ordinarily when there is an accusation of defalcation of monies, the delinquent employee must be kept away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed of. Whether the charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep the individual concerned out of the employment is a different matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire records in question and hence it is always advisable to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered.”
“An order of suspension is primarily an administrative order, but it cannot be passed without proper application of mind. It is usually resorted to when the charge against the delinquent employee is serious enough to justify his discontinuance in the post held by him. An order of suspension is usually issued essentially in public interest. In the case of offences of lesser gravity, the delinquent employee can be kept away from the post even by transfer.”
“In other words, it is to prevent the delinquent employee from availing further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent the delinquent officer from scuttling the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry.”
“When a person like the petitioner who is at the helm of affairs, is alleged to be involved in financial misconduct, the authority has to keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry. In the instant case, we are of the view that the fourth respondent was justified in keeping the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry.”
Previous Posts
Second Appeal: Judgment Should Not Be Interfered With By High Court Unless There Is A Substantial Question Of Law, Reiterates Supreme Court Download Judgement
Keywords
Employee Accused Of Embezzlement,
