TAMILNADU INFORMATION COMMISSION

No.19, Government farm Village, Fanepet, Nandanam, Chennai 600035 (Pension pay office backside) near Saidapet metro station. Ph no. 044-29515590)

Date of Enquiry : 30.07.2021

PRESENT:

Thiru S. MUTHURAJ, B.A.,B.L.,

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

*****

Case Nos. NC.307/D/2020 (SA.5877/D/2019 & SA.5878/D/2019), NC.365/D/2020 (SA.9491/D/2019) &

NC.3023/D/2020 (SA 3465/D/2020 & SA.3466/D/2020) SA.2328/D/2018 & SA.2331/D/2018

Thiru. R. Periyasamy                                         …                            Appellant /Petitioner

/Versus/

 

The Public Information Officer / Commissionerate of Town Panchayat Department	…	Public Information Officer/
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028.		Respondent

 

SA.No.2328/D/2018 & SA.No.2331/D/2018

Thiru.V. Murugesh                                         …                            Appellant /Petitioner

 

/Versus/

The Public Information Officer/                                …                         Public Information Officer/ Directorate of School Education                                                                                        Respondent

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

*****

ORDER

 

The enquiry of this case was held at this Commission on 30.07.2021. During the enquiry the Appellant, the Public Authorities and Public Information Officer were present.

2. In the case bearing no. SA.No.3465 and 3466/2020 Petitioner, under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred as ‘RTI Act, 2005’) has sought following information:
   1. Number of employees of the Town Panchayats who are suspended as on date?
   2. Number of employees who are suspended under the offence mentioned in Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act?
   3. Number of employees who are suspended for any other offence of irregularities?

 

1. Term for which the employees are under suspension?
2. The total sum paid as subsistence allowance for such suspended employees?

 

3. The following information is submitted by the Public Authority:

 

Information sought	Information provided
Number of employees of the Town Panchayats who are suspended as on date?	102
Number    of                   employees              who are suspended      under                 the                  offence mentioned in Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act?	42
Number    of                 employees              who are suspended for any other offence of irregularities?	60
Term for which the employees are under suspension	Min. 2 months to Max 18 years
The total sum paid as subsistence allowance for such suspended employees?	The Subsistence allowance is paid based on the last drawn salary of the employee. The details regarding the total amount paid as Subsistence Allowance is not available with the Commissionrate Office.

4. The Public authority submits a reply to the Petitioner and the Commission. This commission is informed with the data that there are 102 employees who are suspended on various grounds in Town Panchayat Department. The staggering aspect is that out this number, totally 42 employees are suspended under the Vigilance and Anti Corruption

5.                     This commission direct the Public Information Officer, Commissionerate, Town Panchayat to provide information to the Petitioner regarding the current status of petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings.

 

Thiru. V. Murugesh – Vs- The Public Information Officer, Directorate of School Education

6. In the case bearing no. SA.NO. 2328 and 2331 of 2018 Petitioner, under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘RTI Act, 2005’) has sought following information:
   1. Details regarding the Sexual Harassment complaints filed by the students of Government and Government Aided School, unaided schools, Universities, Colleges and All educational Institution and the action taken on those complaints along with many other
7. It has been informed to the Commission and the petitioner by the School Education Department that 232 FIR has been filed against its employees/staff/teachers for the offence of Sexual Harassment. The above mentioned number does not include the complaints and FIR filed against the complaints lodged for offence conducted in Colleges, Universities and other educational and training institutions. In this, number of cases are pending adjudication before Court of Law in various stages. In few cases, reinstatement order has been passed pending criminal proceedings and in few cases conviction order has been passed after prolonged trial. In all the cases Departmental proceedings have been

 

8. The Commission has got opportunity to interact and enquire with numerous Government Authorities, victim’s parent, Suspended Civil servants who seek information and other petitioners who seek information regarding suspended civil servants during the course of the hearing in cases relating to similar nature. The Suspended civil servants seek information regarding their suspension, disciplinary proceedings and payment of Subsistence allowance. The concerned Government Department and the staffs therein are burdened to provide all information regarding such civil servant’s suspension and payment of subsistence allowance. The Officers appearing on behalf of Public Authority expresses anguish that this demoralizes the government staff who are putting their best effort for the department as the suspended civil servant having been suspended on ground of vigilance and anti corruption enjoy pay without working. In town panchayats, the subsistence allowance is paid from and out of the revenue generated by the concerned town panchayat and from the Government Grants. Many town panchayats are not financially independent and suspended civil servants of such town panchayat repeated file RTI petition seeking information regarding payment of subsistence allowance. Such Officers further express that they are burdened to handle the disciplinary proceedings in the Department, litigation filed by such civil servants before the Court of Law, the criminal Proceedings before the investigation Authority and Before the Court of Law, further work generate income from the Town Panchayat to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the suspended civil servants apart from his regular work assigned for his
9. Moreover, in cases relating to civil servants/ staff/ teachers suspended on ground of sexual harassment. In A.NO.4110/D/2019, the victim’s parent had sought information regarding the action taken against suspended teacher. The Commission came to know that the particular teacher who was posted in another institution was also suspended on the same ground of the same offence in that institution. The victim’s parent had expressed distress in the case where such civil servant having committed the offence repeatedly is now enjoying subsistence allowance paid by the Government. The Commission came to know that a civil servant suspended in the year 2005 for an offence under the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act is still getting subsistence allowance as the criminal case is pending. This is creating financial burden to the Town Panchayat and also work burden to the other civil servants. Similar situation exists in other departments also. Payment of full wages as subsistence allowance to such civil servants also de-motivates the other existing civil servants who work for the betterment of the department. In another case this commission is also informed that another teacher who was suspended for an offence under POCSO Act after receiving subsistence allowance for 6 years from 2011 was convicted for 55 years jail imprisonment in the year 2017.
10. The civil servant is expected to act with utmost good faith and loyalty to public during the course of his employment. Any criminal breach committed during the course of his employment, he is liable to be enquired and punished by the investigating authority viz., the Police and any Special Authority created for that purpose. In most circumstances the departmental proceedings are kept in abeyance awaiting report or the final order from such Authority. Till such time the concerned Government Department is faced with lot of hardship and difficulties viz., shortage of man power and financial burden to such department. The existing staffs are forced to cover up the work of the suspended civil servant and also the department is burdened to pay subsistence allowance to such erring civil
11. The constitution guarantees removal of civil servant only after proper department enquiry. In offences relating to grave nature the enquiry is conducted by the investigating authority and after trial the punishment if need be is imposed by the Court. In such cases, Departments hands are tied as they need to rely upon the outcome of the criminal proceedings and till such time the departmental enquiry is merely kept pending by adjourning the enquiry

 

time to time thereby under utilizing the time of Departmental Authority. In another case it came to the knowledge of the Commission that the concerned Department had spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards calling the civil servant for departmental enquiry alone when the criminal case was pending. Therefore it goes without saying that huge amount would be spent on conducting the entire departmental proceedings.

12. This Commission considering the situation and the difficulty faced by the various sectors of Civil servants feels that certain changes and amendments can be made to the existing legal set up to suit the existing situation. This Commission feels that it is imperative to bring to the attention of the Government the anguish and distress expressed by various people on these issues.
13. This Commission was fortunate to stumble upon The Constitution of India and its debates which is as follows:

Article 311 Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

• No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed

(2)   No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

 

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:

 

Provided further that this clause shall not apply

• where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
• where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
• where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry

• If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause ( 2 ), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be

Further more on reading the Constituent Assemble Debates held on 08.09.1949, it makes the intention of the Constitution Makers very clear. The word of Bharat Rathna Dr. B.R. Ambedkar makes it enlightening that

“So far as clause (2) is concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that everybody who has got common sense would agree that this is the best

 

proviso that could have been devised for the protection of the persons engaged in the civil service of the State. The question has been raised that any person who has been convicted in any criminal case need not be given notice. There, again, I must submit that there has been a mistake, because, the regulations made by a State may well provide that although a person is convicted of a criminal offence, if that offence does not involve moral turpitude, he need not be dismissed from the State service. It is perfectly open to Parliament to so legislate. It is not in every criminal charge, for instance, under the motoring law or under some trivial law made by Parliament or by a State making a certain act an offence, that that would necessarily be a ground for dismissal. It would be open to Parliament to say in what cases there need not be any dismissal. It would be perfectly open to Parliament to exclude political offences. This clause in so many words merely deals with the question of giving notice. Parliament may exempt punishment for offences of a political character, exempt offences which do not involve moral turpitude. That liberty of the Parliament is not touched or restricted by sub-clause (a). I want to make this clear.”

14. Thereby it would be prudent to bifurcate the offences committed by the civil servant into two and pay subsistence allowance to the civil servants who have not committed offence that involves moral turpitude. The payment of subsistence allowance has made the civil servants more lethargic and carefree in their employment. This also adds on financial burden to the Government and also work pressure to the existing civil servants. The Government is forced to pay subsistence allowance to all its suspended civil servants. Most of the suspended civil servants are suspended on any one of the following grounds
15. Irregularities committed during the course of the employment
16. Civil servant committing criminal

 

15. These civil servants suspended on the ground of committing criminal offence are further categorized viz., for any criminal office committed during the course of official duty and for any criminal offences committed outside the scope of employment. The commission is now concerned with civil servants who are remanded in police custody for more than 48 hours for offence committed during the scope of employment as the same involves moral turpitude. These civil servants create financial burden to the State and work burden to the existing civil

Payment of subsistence allowance. – (1) An employee who is placed under suspension shall, during the period of such suspension, be entitled to receive payment from the employer as subsistence allowance, an amount equal to fifty percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before suspension, for the first ninety days reckoned from the date of such suspension:

Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds ninety days, but does not exceed one hundred and eighty days, the employee shall be entitled to receive, after the said period of ninety days, a subsistence allowance equal to seventy-five percentum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension:

Provided further that where the period of suspension exceeds one hundred and eighty days, the employee shall be entitled to receive wages in full which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension:

 

Provided also that where the enquiry or criminal proceeding is prolonged beyond the period of ninety days for reasons directly attributable to the employee, the subsistence allowance shall, for the period exceeding ninety days, be reduced to fifty percentum of the wages, which the employee was drawing immediately before his suspension.

 

It is therefore understood that civil servant are entitled to subsistence allowance in the following manner:

Sl. No.	Period ( from the date of Suspension)	Wages
1	0-90 days	50%
2	90-180 days	75%
3	180 days and above	Full wages

 

16. A civil servant suspended on ground of offence under Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 as the offence are of grave nature and investigating authority having seized of the matter the final decision is always subject to the outcome of the Criminal Proceedings conducted by the Court. These offences are committed by the civil servant beyond the scope of his employment and have breached the minimum ethical value a government civil servant should hold. Such civil servants may be relieved from services without subsistence allowance, thereby giving opportunity to another person to fill up the vacancy. The civil servant after having acquitted from the offence may be reinstated. In order to protect the interest of such civil servants, such civil servants may avail the remedy provided under Section 250 Cr.P.C for claim of compensation for false institution of Case. With regard to keeping the departmental enquiry in Abeyance the Hon’ble Supreme Court has acceded to the same on certain conditions. The views of the Hon’ble Supreme on this proposition of Law is as follows:

 

In Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC 679 where this Court reviewed the case law on the subject to identify the following broad principles for application in the facts and circumstances of a given case:

• Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though

(ii)   If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

 

In State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996(6) SCC 417, where this Court reiterated that there was no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave but even the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact.

 

In M/S Stanzen Toyotetsu India P.Ltd vs Girish V & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 636 held that “Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the on- going disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the civil servants. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

 

In K.Veeramani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu CDJ 2019 MHC 1312, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that this Court is of an opinion that, simultaneous proceedings are certainly permissible and only in certain circumstances, the Competent Authorities have to take a decision whether to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case against an employee. If the files, documents and witnesses are available with the disciplinary authority, there is no impediment to continue the departmental disciplinary proceedings, conclude the same and pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings. If no files are available with the disciplinary authority as well as in the department, then the Competent Authorities is empowered to keep the departmental disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till the final disposal of the criminal case by the Competent Criminal Court of Law.

 

CONCLUSION :

Therefore considering the fact that the Commission has got opportunity to interact and enquire with all concerned parties in this aspect, it is understood that the concerned Government Department and the staffs therein are burdened to provide all information regarding suspended civil servant’s suspension and payment of subsistence allowance. The Officers appearing on behalf of Public Authority expresses anguish that this demoralizes the government staff who are putting their best effort for the department as the suspended civil servant having been suspended on ground of vigilance and anti corruption enjoy pay without working. Such Officers further express that they are burdened to handle the disciplinary proceedings in the Department, litigation filed by such civil servants before the Court of Law, the criminal Proceedings before the investigation Authority and Before the Court of Law, further work to generate income from the Town Panchayat to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the suspended civil servants apart from his regular work assigned for his designation. The Commission took into consideration the following aspect as well:

 

1. From the information given by the Town Panchayat Department alone, This commission is informed that there are 102 employees who are suspended on various grounds, out of this totally 42 employees are suspended under the Vigilance and Anti

 

Corruption Act. More than 40% of the suspended employees are on this ground. By keeping the Departmental Proceedings in abeyance the work done by the existing employees attributing to the work related to suspended employees would be reduced and the time of the existing employees can be better utilized.

1. At the same time the Vigilance and Anti Corruption authorities would also utilize the time effectively in handling the criminal case against the erring civil servant rather than spending time on the departmental enquiry that has no effective

 

1. In most of the cases under Vigilance and Anti Corruption the investigating Authority seize huge sum of Money from the employees on the ground of accumulation of disproportionate asset. Paying subsistence allowance to such employees would not serve any

 

• It is also clear that FIR and charge Sheet are filed in cases of Vigilance and Anti Corruption only after detailed investigation and enquiry. Therefore keeping the departmental enquiry pending after appropriate steps taken by the investigating Authority would also not serve the

 

1. In the cases of offence under POCSO Act, a special court has been established and the proceedings are in-camera proceedings. In these issues as well, keeping the departmental enquiry pending till the disposal of criminal case would not serve the purpose. Moreover paying subsistence allowance to such Civil servants would be against the morale of the society.

 

1. Section 250 of Cr.P.C. provides for Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause to all citizens. The civil servant after acquittal of criminal proceedings may take recourse under Section 250 Cr.P.C to claim compensation for lodging false criminal case against

 

The commission with the objective to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and to contain Corruption as envisaged under the objects of the RTI Act, 2005 and under the powers conferred in Section 25(5) of the RTI Act which reads as follows:

 

Section 25(5): If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.

 

Makes the following recommendations:

This Commission recommends to The Secretary, Human Resource Management Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu

1. To amend the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Appeal and Disciplinary) Rules and other related Service Laws accordingly to keep the Departmental Enquiry in abeyance till the disposal of Criminal Proceedings in matters involving offence under Vigilance

 

and    Anti          Corruption          Act      and          the          Protection          of          Children          from          Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

2012. To amend the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and other related Service Laws accordingly to exempt payment of Subsistence Allowance to civil servant suspended for offence under Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,

 

Sd/-(S. MUTHURAJ)

State Information Commissioner

//By order//

 

Section Officer / Assistant Registrar

 

Case Nos. NC.307/D/2020 (SA.5877/D/2019 & SA.5878/D/2019), NC.365/D/2020 (SA.9491/D/2019) & NC.3023/D/2020 (SA 3465/D/2020 & SA.3466/D/2020) SA.2328/D/2018 & SA.2331/D/2018

 

To

1. The Secretary

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Human Resource Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

 

2. The Public Information Officer / Commissionerate of Town Panchayat Department MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

3. The Public Information Officer/ Directorate of School Education College Road, Chennai – 600

 

4. R. Periyasami

13, Pannaiyar Street (North), Arumbalur Post, Perambalur District Pincode – 621 103.

 

5. V. Murugesh S/o. Veerabadran,

No. 43/68, 2^nd Cross Street, South Kesava Perumalpuram, Greenways Road,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

 

Copy to :

 

 

1. The Vigilance Commissioner / The Chief Secretary

Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

 

 

2. Tamil Nadu State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

183/1, EVR Periyar Salai, Poonamalli High Road, Dasspuram, Kilpauk, Chennai,

Tamil Nadu, India – 600 010.

 

 

3. The Secretary,

Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of Personnel, P G and Pensions Government of India

North Block, New Delhi – 110 001

 

4. The Secretariat

Central Vigilance Commission Satarkta Bhavan , Block-A GPO Complex , INA

New Delhi – 110 023.

 

 

5. Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India,

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001.

 

போக்சோ மற்றும் ஊழல் தடுப்பு சட்டத்தின் கீழ் சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்படும் அரசு ஊழியர்களுக்கு, சஸ்பெண்ட் காலத்திற்கான பிழைப்பூதியம் வழங்காமல் இருக்கும் வகையில் சட்டங்களில் திருத்தம் கொண்டு வர வேண்டும் என்று தமிழக அரசுக்கு தமிழ்நாடு மாநில தகவல் ஆணையம் பரிந்துரைத்துள்ளது.

பேரூராட்சிகளில் எத்தனை பேர் ஊழல் தடுப்பு சட்டத்தின்கீழ் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர், எத்தனை பேர் சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளனர் என்பன உள்ளிட்ட கேள்விகளை எழுப்பி, பேரூராட்சிகள் ஆணையத்திடம் ஆர்.பெரியசாமி என்பவர் மாநில தகவல் ஆணையத்துக்கு விண்ணப்பித்திருந்தார்.

இதேபோல், பாலியல் கொடுமை தொடர்பாக எத்தனை ஆசிரியர்கள், ஊழியர்கள் மீது புகார் வந்துள்ளது. எத்தனை பேர் மீது வழக்கு தொடரப்பட்டுள்ளது? எத்தனை பேர் மீது துறைரீதியான நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது? எத்தனை பேர் சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளனர் என்று முருகேஷ் என்பவர் பள்ளிக் கல்வித்துறை இயக்குநரகத்துக்கு கேள்வி எழுப்பியிருந்தார்.

இதற்கு சம்மந்தப்பட்ட துறை பொது தகவல் அதிகாரிகள் சரியான பதில்கள் தராததால் இருவரும் மாநில தகவல் ஆணையத்தில் மேல்முறையீடு செய்தனர்.

இதை விசாரித்த மாநில தகவல் ஆணையர் எஸ்.முத்துராஜ், பேரூராட்சிகள் ஆணையத்தின் பொது தகவல் அதிகாரி அளித்த தகவலில் பேரூராட்சிகள் ஊழல் தடுப்பு சட்டத்தின்கீழ் 42 பேர் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்பட்டு சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளனர். இதர குற்றங்களுக்காக 60 பேர் சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளனர் என்று தெரவித்தார்.

பள்ளிக்கல்வி துறை பொது தகவல் அதிகாரி இதுவரை பாலியல் குற்றங்களுக்காக 232 ஆசிரியர்கள், ஊழியர்கள் மீது போக்சோ சட்டத்தின்கீழ் வழக்கு பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது என்று தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

லஞ்ச வழக்குகளிலும், போக்சோ சட்டங்களின் கீழும் நடவடிக்கைக்கு உள்ளாகும் அரசு ஊழியர்கள் சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்படும்போது அந்த காலத்தில் அவர்களுக்கு முதல் 90 நாட்களுக்கு 50 சதவீதம் ஊதியம் பிழைப்பூதியம் என்ற பெயரில் வழங்கப்படுவதைச் சுட்டிக்காட்டிய தகவல் ஆணையர், சஸ்பெண்ட் செய்யப்படுபவர்களுக்கு வழங்கப்படும் பிழைப்பூதியம் அரசுக்கு பெரும் நிதி சுமையை ஏற்படுத்துகிறது என்பதால், ஊழல் மற்றும் போக்சோ குற்றச்சாட்டுக்களுக்கு ஆளாகும் அரசு ஊழியர்களின் சஸ்பெண்ட் காலத்தில் பிழைப்பூதியம் வழங்குவதிலிருந்து விலக்கு அளிக்கு அளிக்கும் வகையில் தமிழ்நாடு சம்பளம் மற்றும் பிழைப்பூதிய சட்டம் மற்றும் பணி தொடர்பான சட்டங்களில் திருத்தம் கொண்டு வர வேண்டும் என்று அரசுக்கு பரிந்துரைத்துள்ளார்.