Madras High Court
R.Balaji vs The Mangement Of Tamil Nadu State ... on 13 September, 2022
1 W.P.(MD)NO.11194 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.11194 & 11195 of 2022 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7999, 8000 & 11237 of 2022
R.Balaji,
S/o.Ramar,
Assistant Engineer, Staff No.31567,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Virudhunagar Region,
Residing at:
5-18-48, Postal Colony,
Madurai Road, Palayampatti,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
in both petitions
Vs.
1. The Mangement of Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Madurai.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Virudhunagar Region,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Aruppukottai Branch,
Aruppukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
2 W.P.(MD)NO.11194 OF 2022
4. Arumugam,
The Managing Director,
The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Madurai.
5. S.Nagaraj,
The Branch Manager,
The Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Aruppukottai Branch,
Aruppukottai. ... Respondents
in both petitions
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.11194 of 2022 : Writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to
the impugned charge memo passed by the second respondent
in Ref. No.Legal/Sa1/1142/7B/2022 dated 21.05.2022 and
quash the same.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.11195 of 2022 : Writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to
the impugned order of suspension passed by the second
respondent in Ref. No.Legal/Sa1/1142/7B/2022 dated
21.05.2022 and quash the same.
(in both W.Ps.)
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah,
Standing Counsel.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
3 W.P.(MD)NO.11194 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioner was employed as Assistant
Engineer in the respondent transport corporation on
25.02.2022. When the writ petitioner was working at
Aruppukkottai branch, he was informed that there was an
unclaimed baggage in one of the buses. After making entry in
the chitta notebook, the petitioner contacted the jurisdictional
police and the police opened the baggage and based on the
ATM card found inside the baggage, located the passenger.
The baggage was also duly handed over to the said passenger.
It received widespread appreciation and was also published in
the media. But the petitioner's superiors did not take kindly to
these developments. The petitioner was suspended from
service and also issued with charge memo on 21.05.2022.
According to the management, the petitioner ought to have
informed his superior authority and erred in contacting the
police on his own. Exception was also taken to the newspaper
publication.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/6
4 W.P.(MD)NO.11194 OF 2022
2. I am unable to understand the approach adopted by
the management. The petitioner had acted with sufficient
speed and alacrity. He had contacted the local police and
ensured that the missing baggage was duly restored to the
passenger. Instead of appreciating the act of the writ
petitioner, the management has chosen to find fault.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in
(1979) 2 SCC 286 ( Union of India and Others V.
J.Ahmed ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decision had held that only if there is an ill-motive, it would
amount to misconduct and a single act of omission or error of
judgment would ordinarily not constitute misconduct though if
such error or omission results in serious or atrocious
consequences, the same may amount to misconduct. In this
case, the consequences of the conduct of the writ petitioner
were good and salutary. The management had absolutely no
cause of action for suspending the writ petitioner or initiating
the disciplinary proceedings. It is brought to my notice that
the suspension order had been revoked. But the writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
5 W.P.(MD)NO.11194 OF 2022
filed for challenging the suspension order will not become
infructuous. The impugned suspension order is bad in law.
4. In this view of the matter, the impugned
suspension order as well as the impugned charge memo are
quashed. The writ petitions stand allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
To:
1. The Mangement of Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai.
2. The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar.
3. The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Aruppukottai Branch, Aruppukottai.
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 W.P.(MD)NO.11194 OF 2022
PMU
W.P.(MD)Nos.11194 & 11195 of 2022
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
