Madras High Court
A.Tiruppathi vs The Managing Director on 11 October, 2022
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.3628 of 2018
A.Tiruppathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd,
102/12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd,
102/12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
3.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd,
102/12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent vide
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
Ku.No.E8/1117/ Tha.A.Po.Ka.(Salem)/ 2015 dated 18.05.2015 demanding a
sum of Rs.3,27,960/- from the petitioner as non implemented punishment of
increment cut and consequently direct the respondents to pay the said sum
of Rs.71,865/- of Social Welfare fund and Rs.2,56,095/- of gratuity amount
and in total sum of Rs.3,27,960/- to the petitioner along with the other
terminal benefits of IRTT, Earned Leave Salary and arrears of pension
amount for 8 months available to the petitioner along with the interest at the
rate of 9% from 30.04.2015 till date of payment to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthik
For Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Babu
ORDER
The order dated 18.05.2015 implementing the punishment of stoppage
of increment by recovering the part amount at the time of retirement of the
writ petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was served as Conductor in the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation and retired from service on 30.04.2015. While the
petitioner was in service, departmental disciplinary proceedings were
initiated in respect of certain allegations and a punishment of stoppage of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed in
proceedings dated 22.02.2013 and 15.10.2013. These punishments were
imposed two years prior to the retirement of the writ petitioner. The
punishment became final and the authorities implemented the punishment
by not granting increments to the writ petitioner. The petitioner reached the
age of superannuation on 30.04.2015 and at that point of time, the
authorities have calculated the balance amount of punishment and recovered
the same by passing the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the
authorities ought not to have imposed the punishment of stoppage of three
years increment, knowing the fact that the petitioner id due for retirement of
service in three years. It is further contended that there is no provision to
recover the punishment amount at the time of retirement of the employee.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said
contention by stating that it is not in dispute that punishment imposed on the
petitioner became final and accordingly, the authorities started
implementing the punishment immediately after the order of punishment.
However, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
and the part portion of the punishment alone is sought to be recovered at the
time of his retirement. Whenever, the punishment of stoppage of increment
was imposed and the employee retired from service during the
implementation of the said punishment, then the authorities competent are
empowered to recover the balance amount involved in the punishment and
settle the terminal and pensionary benefits as per the rules in force.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the
Honourable Division Bench in W.A.(MD).Nos.52 to 54 of 2015 dated
24.02.2015, wherein, the following observations are made.
“6.In paragraph No.5 of the impugned order dated
01.08.2013, the Learned Single Judge has observed as
follows:
“4. When an order of penalty is
passed, it is the duty of the disciplinary
authority to see as to how far it could be
enforced. The disciplinary authority, who
imposed the penalty of stoppage of
increment for four years with cumulative
effect appears to have lost sight of the
impending retirement of the petitioner
from service. The service of persons like
the petitioner are governed by the
standing orders issued under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act. Though stoppage of increment for &
specified duration, can be converted into
recovery of the amount equivalent to the
same, by virtue of certain provisions
contained in the Fundamental Rules, in
respect of Government servants, who
reach superannuation before such
penalties are implemented in full, the
same logic may not apply to employees of
Transport Corporations, The provision of
the Fundamental Rules may not per se
apply to Transport Corporation
employees.
5. In any event, the order of
penalty at least should have taken care of
the contingency and made it clear that a
recover of an equivalent amount will be
ordered. But the penalty order dated
15.11.2011 does not state so. Even the
order of retirement dated 28.07.2012 does
not convert the penalty into one of
recovery of the equivalent amount.
Therefore, what has actually happened is
a recovery without any order and that too
effected after retirement. It is wholly
illegal. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed direction the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
respondent to settle all the terminal
benefits without any recovery to the
petitioner within period of eight weeks fro
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
If any amount bas already been paid, the
same shall be deducted. No costs."
It is not in dispute that the facts of the Writ
petitions are identical and hence, the above reasoning
given would hold good for the cases including the Writ
petitions filed by the respondents herein, hence, all the
Writ petitions were allowed and thereby the appellants
/ respondents were directed to settle all the terminal
benefits to the respondents Writ petitioners and for
others to pay the amount without any recovery within
a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.”
6. Regarding the above order passed by the Honourable Division
Bench, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a workman under the
Industrial Disputes Act and governed under the 12(3) Settlement, entered
into between the Transport Corporation Management and the Union.
Therefore, the Fundamental Rules of the Government is not applicable to
the workman serving in the Transport Corporation. The said observation
made by the Honourable Division Bench is of no avail to the writ petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
7. Regarding the imposition of punishment, the Fundamental Rules
says that the equal sum shall be recovered from the Government servants
even if they reached the age of superannuation. In the absence of any similar
provision to the Transport Corporation workman, the same principle is to be
adopted, since the punishment cannot be left unimplemented. Once the
allegations are proved and the competent authorities imposed the
punishment and the punishment became final, the implementation is the
consequence and thus, the authorities, who implemented the punishment,
cannot be faulted.
8. Even in respect of the present writ petition, the petitioner
admittedly is a workman and governed under the 12(3) Settlement. He is
questioning the implementation of the punishment and the consequential
recovery, thus, he has to approach the Labour Court adjudication of
disputed issues if any with reference to the terms and conditions of the
settlement. However, in the present case, the order of punishment was being
implemented by the respondents from the year 2012 and 2013 and the
portion of punishment, which was implemented at the time of retirement
alone is challenged in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
9. This Court is of an opinion that in the event of imposing of
punishment of stoppage of increment on the employee and during the course
of implementation, such an employee attained the age of superannuation,
the authorities are empowered to calculate the balance amount to be
deducted in eve of punishment and accordingly, settle the other benefits as
per the rules in force.
10. This being the principles to be adopted, this Court do not find any
infirmity in respect of the orders passed and accordingly, the Writ Petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
11.10.2022
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd,
102/12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd,
102/12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
3.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Salem) Ltd,
102/12, Ramakrishna Road,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.2981 of 2018
11.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
