'Something Wrong In Dept': Madras High Court Sets Aside Suspension Of Employees Who Spoke In Media Against TASMAC

Perusing the materials produced to the court, Justice B Pugalendhi commented that there was something wrong with the department. The court further noted that since the department was being run by the government, it should not allow any corruption.

“The available materials show that there is something wrong in the department. The TASMAC is run by the government in order to prevent causalities on account of illicit arrack and it should not allow any corruption in the department. The department has to realise its mistake,” the court said.

The court was hearing petitions filed by three employees of TASMAC challenging their suspension orders issued in 2022. The petitioners submitted that they were suspended by the management since they gave TV interviews against TASMAC.

The employees claimed that the then District Manager of TASMAC had been colluding with a supervisor of TASMAC shop in Thirumangalam and collecting RS. 3000 to Rs. 5000 mamool every month from each shop under her control. They also submitted that the District manager had violated circulars and gave additional charges to TASMAC supervisor and employees in another shop, to her whims and fancies.

The employees told the court that they had also made complaints to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption which was forwarded to the Managing Director of TASMAC for necessary action. However, since the complaint was not addressed properly, the employees went before the media following which they were suspended.

TASMAC, on the other hand, claimed that petitioner employees acted against the Code of Conduct for Employees issued in Circular No. 2 of 2019 dated 21.01,2019 and hence were issued with suspension order. With respect to the allegations of corruption, it was submitted that enquiry was duly conducted and the allegations of corruption against the District Manager was not proved.

The court noted that though the DVAC had forwarded the petitioners' complaint, it was not attended for four months. The court also noted that the Senior regional Manager who conducted the enquiry had closed the same saying that the allegation was without any materials. However, the District Manager against whom the allegation was made was transferred and repatriated to parent department and later retired from service.

Considering the materials, the court remarked that something was wrong with the department and that the complaint of the petitioners was not addressed properly. Though the court agreed that the petitioners had acted against the circular, considering the manner in which the issue was handled, the court set aside the suspension order and gave liberty to the department to initiate disciplinary action against the employees.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. B . Brijesh Kishore

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. H. Arumugam

Case Title: K Mayakannan and Others v. The Managing Director and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 177

Case No: WP(MD)No.20439 to 20441 of 2022