Madras High Court
D.Pandi vs The Tamil Nadu State Transport ... on 2 November, 2022
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12874 of 2018
D.Pandi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Bye Pass Road,
Madurai.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd;,
Virudhunagar Region,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned office order passed by the second respondent in
Ref.No.Sattam/Sa1/104/6B/12, dated 11.05.2018 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The writ petitioner joined the respondent Corporation as Reserve Crew
Driver. The vehicle driven by him was involved in an accident on 04.07.2010.
The two wheeler rider died in the accident. In this regard, Crime No.495 of
2010 was registered on the file of the South Police Station, Thoothukudi. The
petitioner faced trial in C.C.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thoothukudi. The case ended in acquittal on 25.02.2013. The
Judgment of acquittal has become final. During the pendency of the criminal
proceedings, the Management issued charge memo dated 16.03.2012 on the
same cause of action. An enquiry officer was appointed and he held that the
charge against the writ petitioner was proved. The averments set out in the
enquiry report were accepted by the Management and after hearing the writ
petitioner, the impugned order dated 11.05.2018 was passed. Punishment
imposed on the petitioner was postponement of petitioner's daily wage period
by further period of two years. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to
be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow the writ
petition as prayed for.
4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned
standing counsel took me through its contents. He submitted that the
impugned order does not warrant any interference.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6. The impugned order is vulnerable on more than one ground. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242 (Vijay Singh
Vs. State of U.P.) held that the disciplinary authority cannot impose
punishment that has not been prescribed under the statutory Rules. I had
followed the said decision in a case involving an employee of State Transport
Corporation. I had held in W.P.(MD)No.20629 of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 that
the Management of the State Transport Corporation cannot impose punishment
that has not been prescribed in the certified Standing Orders. The punishment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
set out in the impugned order is not one of the punishments set out in the
certified Standing Orders. However, the petitioner's counsel states that he has
no objection for modifying the punishment order in tune with the order dated
02.09.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.11211 of 2013. Accordingly, it is ordered
that the petitioner shall be conferred with permanent status on completion of
720 days from 01.08.2008.
7. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.11.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
W.P(MD)No.14229 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12874 of 2018
02.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
