Madras High Court
K.Sivaraju vs The Managing Director on 4 January, 2022
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 04.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
K.Sivaraju ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd,
Madurai – 16.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd,
Dindigul Region,
Dindigul -4. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of writ of
certiorarified mandamus calling for the records connected
with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
Ref No.LD4VD/317, dated 29.11.2019, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to drop the punishment
of increment cut for eighteen months in full based on the
action dropped report dated 26.05.2013 submitted by the
Masarpatty Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate,
Vilathikulam and also in the light of the judgment of this
Court reported in 2018(4) LLN 530 (Mad) along with cost of
Rs.10,000/- for compelling the petitioner to file this writ
petition for dropping the punishment.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Govindarajan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed as against the order
of punishment dated 29.11.2019. The first respondent vide
impugned order has imposed punishment of increment cut with
cumulative effect.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is working as a conductor in the respondent
corporation. While he was on duty on 25.04.2013 in the bus
bearing Registration No.TN 57/N-2001 plying from Dindigul
to Thiruchendur, an elderly woman tried to alight from the
said bus, slipped and fell down, sustained injury and
subsequently died in the hospital. For this incident,
departmental proceedings were initiated in the year 2013
and this petitioner was imposed with a punishment of
increment cut with cumulative effect for two years on
27.11.2014. In the meantime, the Inspector of Police,
Masarpatty, who registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2013
for the said incident, has referred the case as action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
dropped. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal in
the year 2014 before the first respondent the Managing
Director, who modified the punishment to two years
increment cut with cumulative effect on 31.05.2017.
Not satisfied with the same, the petitioner had preferred a
writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.24931 of 2018,
wherein this Court by order dated 23.04.2019 directed the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per
the terms and conditions of Settlement under Section 12(3)
of the ID Act. In pursuance of the directions, an order
reducing the punishment of increment cut with cumulative
effect for eighteen months from two years of increment cut
with cumulative effect has been passed. Aggrieved over the
same, the present writ petition is filed.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further by
referring clause 61 of the settlement under Section 12(3)
of the ID Act submits that if the departmental proceedings
are initiated based on a criminal case and if the criminal
case ends in acquittal or is dropped by the Police
concerned, disciplinary authority may revise the
punishment. The petitioner is working as a conductor and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
is not responsible for the incident. However, charges have
been framed as against the petitioner and punishment was
also imposed. The Police, who registered a case, referred
the case as action dropped. Even then the respondents have
not dropped the punishment, instead, they have reduced the
punishment. The petitioner has also approached this Court.
This Court by order dated 23.04.2019 directed the
respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the
light of 12(3) settlement and finally the punishment was
slightly reduced from two years increment cut to eighteen
months increment cut with cumulative effect and therefore,
the petitioner is before this Court.
4.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
corporation submits that clause 61 of the Settlement under
Section 12(3) of the ID Act is not applicable to the
petitioner, who is working as a conductor. Further the
language used in the 12(3) settlement is 'may', therefore,
the discretion is vested with the disciplinary authority,
who has taken a right decision and imposed a punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
5.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the
rival submissions and perused the materials placed on
record.
6.The petitioner, who is working as a Conductor has
been held responsible by the disciplinary authority for the
action of passenger in alighting from the moving bus, who
sustained injury and died later. The Police registered a
case for this incident and after investigation, referred
the case as action dropped. However, the respondent
Corporation has proceeded with the departmental
proceedings, found this petitioner responsible for the
incident and imposed punishment of increment cut with
cumulative effect for three years. On appeal, the said
punishment has been modified to two years. The petitioner
has already challenged the punishment in W.P(MD)No.24931 of
2018, wherein this Court directed the respondents to
reconsider the order of punishment as per clause 61 of
12(3) settlement of the ID Act. Accordingly, the punishment
was revised by the respondents for increment cut with
cumulative effect for eighteen months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
7.In similar such circumstances, a Division Bench of
this Court in the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation, Madurai Vs M.Sathyaseelan
[W.A(MD)No.587 of 2021, dated 17.06.2021] held as follows:
“As pointed out by the learned Counsel for
the appellant, the language used is 'may' and
not 'shall'. Therefore, sufficient discretion
has been given to the disciplinary authority to
review the order of punishment, after orders
are passed in a criminal Court. In the instant
case, the criminal case registered against the
respondent has been closed as 'mistake of
fact'. However, the responsibility has been
fixed on the Transport Corporation, by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and
compensation amount of more than Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only), has been paid by the
Transport Corporation to the victims family.
7.In such circumstances, we find that the
exercise of discretion by the first appellant
to be not wholly unsatisfactory, but however,
considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the first appellant could have modified
the punishment to that of, one without
cumulative effect instead of cumulative effect,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
because, it may affect the respondent's
pensionary and other benefits.
8.Furthermore, in terms of clause 61 of the
Settlement, it provides for such review of the
punishment in cases honorouable acquittal. The
learned Single Bench has placed the closure of
the criminal case as mistake of fact to be
better than a case of honourable acquittal.
However, we do not fully subscribe to the said
view, in any event, that issue does not arise
as one of the issues fell for consideration in
the writ petition.”
8.In the above case, a Division Bench of this Court has
modified the punishment of 'increment cut with cumulative
effect' to 'increment cut without cumulative effect'.
9.In the case on hand, charges have been framed as
against this petitioner based on the criminal case
registered against the petitioner in Crime No.29 of 2013,
on the file of the Masarpatti Police Station, which has
been closed by referring as action dropped. However,
finally the petitioner is imposed with a punishment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
increment cut with cumulative effect for eighteen months.
10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also in view of the above said decision, this Court
modifies the punishment imposed on the petitioner from
'increment cut for eighteen months with cumulative effect'
to 'increment cut for eighteen months without cumulative
effect'.
11.The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.
No costs.
04.01.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dsk
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.
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd,
Madurai – 16.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd,
Dindigul Region,Dindigul -4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.P(MD)No.6480 of 2020
04.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
