Madras High Court
V.Pandiarajan vs The General Manager on 27 June, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10599 and 10600 of 2016
V.Pandiarajan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The General Manager,
Department of Disciplinary Proceedings,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(Madurai) Limited,
Madurai Division, Madurai.
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation,
Thirumangalam Depot,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of 1st respondent in
Parvai/O.Na.Thu/D7/Thi.Ma/CR/3254, dated 29.02.2016, which served
on 15.04.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and un-constitutional,
consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to return back the money of
Rs.13,234/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Four
only) which was recovered from the petitioner and acknowledged by the
2nd respondent in receipt No.106575, dated 07.12.2015, for missing of
ticket-books in question.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
*****
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
quash the impugned proceedings dated 29.02.2016 of 1st respondent and
consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to return back the money of
Rs.13,234/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
only) which was recovered from the petitioner and acknowledged by the
2nd respondent in receipt No.106575, dated 07.12.2015, for missing of
ticket-books in question.
2. The petitioner was a Senior Grade Conductor in the respondent
Corporation. On 28.11.2015, the Bus bearing Registration No. TN 58-N
1195, the bus ticketing machine was suddenly corrupted. Therefore,
when the petitioner was searching the manual ticket book which he kept
in a box near Driver seat and the same was missing which valued about
Rs.27,830/-. The petitioner had preferred a criminal complaint to trace
out missing ticket books and the FIR in Crime No.583 of 2015, was
registered on 29.11.2015 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam
Town. Missing tickets for the value of Rs.14,596/- was found and the
petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.13,234/- for the value of untraceable
tickets in question to the 2nd respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
3. The 1st respondent issued charge memo, dated 31.12.2015, for
missing ticket books. The petitioner submitted explanations but the
explanations were not satisfactory to the 1st respondent. Hence, a show
cause notice was issued. The respondents proposed a punishment of
stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect and
passed the impugned order, dated 15.04.2016.
4. The petitioner relied on the 12(3) settlement between the Trade
Unions and the Management of all State Transport Corporations, wherein
it is stated that whenever the ticket books are lost in robbery, theft, riot
and accident and an FIR has been registered for the loss of ticket books,
no recovery should be effect. However, the respondents have recovered
money from the petitioner and also imposed a punishment for the
missing of ticket books. Hence, the petitioner prayed to return back the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
recovered amount and set aside the punishment.
5.The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit, but relied
on the impugned order and submitted that due to the petitioner’s
carelessness the tickets were lost. Infact some tickets were recovered but
some tickets could not be recovered, which would indicate the
petitioner’s carelessness and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6.Heard S.Balamurugan, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents.
7.The relevant portion of the Clause 29 of 12(3) Settlement is
culled out hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
“Clause 29. That in the event of loss of ticket books is
reported by way of complaint to the police and such loss
had occurred due to accident, theft or robbery no recovery
should be made from the concerned conductor”
The petitioner also relied on the Division Bench judgment rendered by
this Court in W.A. No. 142 / 2012, dated 16.11.2014, in K.C.Palanisamy
Vs TNSTC (Coimbatore) Limited and the relevant portion is culled out
hereunder:
“As far as the case in hand is concerned also, the appellant
has intimated instantaneously about the loss of unused ticket
books both to the police station as well as to the respondent
Corporation. Hence no negligence can be attributed against
the appellant. Therefore, the matter in issue is covered by the
Division Bench Judgment referred above. The Learned Single
Judge has not considered the said aspect. In the light of the
said Division Bench Judgment the order of the Learned Single
Judge cannot be sustained.”
8.In another Division Bench Judgment in Rani Mangammal
Transport Corporation Limited Vs M. Palanisamy reported in (2008) 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
MLJ 224, has held as under:
“4.Having heard the learned counsel we find force in
submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. From
the respective submissions made and on a perusal of the
affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent as well as the
counter affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ petition, we
find that the respondent cannot be held to have acted in a
negligent manner as far as the loss of unused ticket books
entrusted with him while he was assigned the duty on
26.04.1992. According to the respondent he reported about the
loss of the ticket books through wireless to the higher
authorities. There was nothing to suggest that no such
message was ever sent by the respondent. In fact, on his way
back in the next trip, he was issued with two new ticket books
at Ottanchatram Depot. If really there was no intimation,
authorities at the Ottanchatram Depot would not have readily
come forward to issue the two new ticket books to the
respondent. The fact that the respondent made police
complaint immediately after the conclusion of duty hours on
26.04.1992, also impresses us to hold that the respondent took
all diligent steps to duly inform the appellant about the loss of
the tickets. In this context, while we peruse the proceedings
referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant namely, the
proceedings dated 26.06.1991 and 05.08.1991, we find that
the cumulative effect of the proceedings were to ensure that
necessary enquiry should be done in case where loss of unused
ticket books is reported, either to defraud the appellant
Corporation or such reporting discloses that the concerned
conductor was diligent in performance of his duty and the loss
of ticket books were beyond his control and at the instance of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
some other extraneous circumstances or by other
unscrupulous persons. Therefore, if such was the
contemplation of the appellant Corporation, in adopting such
a course of holding an enquiry, in respect of the loss of unused
ticket books is reported, we are of the view that the very
purpose would be defeated if the recovery of the value of
unused ticket books is automatically made whenever loss is
reported. In fact, subsequently in 1995 settlement namely
clause 29 of the said settlement makes it clear that in the event
of loss of ticket books is reported by way of complaint to the
police and such loss had occurred due to accident, theft or
robbery, no recovery should be made from the concerned
Conductor. The same point of view was very much existing in
the earlier proceedings when the appellant Corporation
prescribed the procedure of holding an enquiry, wherever loss
of ticket books are reported.”
9.In this present case, the petitioner preferred FIR immediately
for the loss of the tickets and had intimated the loss of tickets to the
higher officials as well. Therefore, the petitioner is protected under
Clause 29 of the 12(3) settlement. Therefore, this Court is setting aside
the impugned order and consequently directing the respondents to refund
the amount already recovered towards missing of ticket books.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
10.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 27.06.2023
Internet : Yes
NCC : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
W.P.(MD)No.14274 of 2016
27.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
