Madras High Court
K.Ravi vs The General Manager on 11 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
K.Ravi ... Petitioner
-vs-
The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to cancel the
punishment of 3 years increment cut with cumulative effect in the light of
the Judgment delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaikundam in
C.C.No.300/2012, dated 23.02.2017 and settlement U/S 12(3) of Industrial
Disputes Act 1947.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathyasingh, Standing Counsel
*******
_________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondent to cancel the punishment of three years increment cut with
cumulative effect.
2. The order of punishment has not been challenged in the writ
petition. Contrarily, writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the
respondent to cancel the punishment. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that
the relief sought for itself is improper. This apart, mere acquittal in a
criminal case is not a ground to seek exoneration from the departmental
disciplinary proceedings or the punishment imposed. In all such cases,
departmental proceedings are to be decided independently with reference to
the documents and evidences available and to convict a person in a criminal
law, strict evidence is required. However, no such proof is required for
departmental disciplinary proceedings, as preponderance of probabilities are
enough to punish an employee under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, the departmental disciplinary
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
proceedings and the criminal proceedings are distinct and different and the
acquittal is not a ground for exoneration.
3. However, the petitioner is a workman and his service
conditions are governed under the 12(3) Settlement of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the petitioner has to exhaust the remedy
contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act by approaching the
competent labour court. With reference to the documents and evidences,
such an elaborate adjudication cannot be done in a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, when an efficacious
alternate remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act, High Court
need not entertain a writ petition for adjudication of disputed facts. The
findings of the labour court with reference to the facts and circumstances
would be of greater assistance to exercise the power of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Exhausting the alternate remedy is
the rule and entertaining a writ petition is an exception. Thus, the petitioner
is at liberty to approach the labour court and in the event of approaching the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
labour court, the period during which the writ petition was pending before
this Court is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of condoning the
delay, if any, and the issues are to be decided on merits and in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible.
4. With the above liberty, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
11.04.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes
abr
To
The General Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Ltd.,
Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2019
11.04.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
