Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete allowed a writ appeal filed by government health authorities, setting aside a prior reinstatement order. The Court held that contractual government employment can be lawfully terminated based on misconduct arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Bench directed that the earlier writ order reinstating a disengaged contractual Dental Assistant be set aside and declared it inconsistent with established legal principles.

The respondent in the present writ appeal was engaged as a Dental Assistant in a Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre located in Bogaloor, Ramanathapuram District. His appointment was made on a contractual basis for a period of one year, which was subsequently renewed from time to time.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment

While serving under this arrangement, the respondent was implicated in a criminal case. As a result of the ongoing criminal proceedings, the health authorities issued an order dated 13.07.2017, disengaging him from service. The respondent thereafter approached the High Court via writ petition, challenging his disengagement and seeking reinstatement.

In W.P.(MD) No.248 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court issued an order on 01.02.2018 in favor of the writ petitioner (respondent herein), holding that a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute should not be treated as an impediment to the continuance of contractual government employment. The Single Judge directed the authorities to reinstate the writ petitioner.

The government authorities, aggrieved by this order, filed the current writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, seeking to set aside the judgment passed in the writ petition.

The appellants in this case include the Executive Secretary of the District Health Society / Deputy Director of Health Services, Ramanathapuram; the Deputy Director of Health Services, Paramakudi; and the Block Medical Officer, Government Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Bogaloor.

The government side argued that the respondent was engaged only on a contractual basis and his tenure had already expired by the time the disengagement order was issued. They contended that due to his implication in a criminal case connected to a matrimonial dispute, he was unfit to continue in public service, even under a contractual arrangement.

Furthermore, it was submitted that under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, such conduct falls under the definition of "misconduct," thereby justifying the decision to disengage him. The appellants also maintained that a public servant is expected to maintain good conduct not only within the office premises but also in society at large.

The Division Bench addressed the core legal issues involved in the matter, relying on the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, and principles governing contractual government employment.

The Court recorded in its reasoning that "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."

It further stated, "A public servant is expected to maintain honesty, integrity and good conduct both inside the office and in the society."

Referring to the nature of the employment, the Court observed that "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."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Refund Denial: "Petitioner is not an agency"—Directed to Grant ITC Refund Within Four Weeks

On the writ court's view, the Bench recorded, "the writ court formed an opinion that the criminal case registered in a matrimonial dispute may not be an impediment for continuance of the government contractual employment." However, the Division Bench disagreed with this assessment, finding it not in alignment with established legal principles.

The Court stated that "the writ order is not inconsonance with the principles established" and stated that even in cases of contractual engagement, the public nature of the employment warrants adherence to standards of conduct.

The Court concluded by issuing a clear directive: "Accordingly, the writ order dated 01.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.248 of 2018, is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. V. Om Prakash, Government Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. K. R. Laxman, Advocate

Case Title: The Executive Secretary of District and Others v. K.S. Subha Karuthukhan

Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:1398

Case Number: W.A.(MD) No.182 of 2020

Bench: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete

[Read/Download order]