Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The Tamil Nadu State Transport vs R.M.Chitra
2021 Latest Caselaw 5236 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5236 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2021

Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu State Transport vs R.M.Chitra on 26 February, 2021
                                                                             W.A.(MD)No.115 of 2020

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 26.02.2021

                                                   CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
                                             AND
                              THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                           W.A.(MD)No.115 of 2020
                                                    and
                                          C.M.P.(MD)No.1014 of 2020

                 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport
                          Corporation Ltd.,
                    Kumbakonam Division-II, Trichy-I,
                    Rep. by the General Manager (Operation)
                    Tamil Nadu State Transport
                          Corporation Ltd.,
                    Trichy – 1.

                 2. The Managing Director,
                    Tamil Nadu State Transport
                          Corporation Ltd.,
                    Kumbakonam Division-II, Trichy -1.                    ... Appellants

                                                      Vs.

                 1. R.M.Chitra

                 2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
                    Rep. by its Secretary,
                    Transport Department,
                    Fort St. George,
                    Chennai – 600 009.                                    ... Respondents


                           Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, against the

                 order dated 01.02.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.19089 of 2014.
http://www.judis.nic.in


                 1/4
                                                                               W.A.(MD)No.115 of 2020




                           For Appellants     :   Mr.D.Sivaraman

                           For Respondents    :   Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
                                                  for Mr.K.Gurunathan for R1


                                                  JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned

Single Judge, while upholding the findings on merits including the past conduct

of the employee, found the punishment as grossly disproportionate to the charges

framed and accordingly, modified the same as one of compulsory retirement.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reasoning

given by the learned Single Judge is not correct, merely because, different

punishment was imposed on earlier occasion and again, the punishment imposed

thereafter cannot be assailed. It is for the employer to impose appropriate

punishment in accordance with law. The only reason given by the learned Single

Judge is that had the orders been passed earlier, the present situation would not

have occurred. Such reasoning cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

3. We are concerned with the punishment imposed pursuant to the

order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is a case of unauthorized absence. http://www.judis.nic.in

W.A.(MD)No.115 of 2020

Taking note of the cumulative facts available, the learned Single Judge modified

the punishment to one of compulsory retirement. Such discretion exercised is not

required to be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[M.M.S.J.,] [S.A.I.J.,] 26.02.2021 ogy

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.A.(MD)No.115 of 2020

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

and S.ANANTHI, J.

ogy

W.A.(MD)No.115 of 2020

26.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter