Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner/ on 21 September, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12206 of 2023
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited.,
Byepass Road, Madurai-16.
2.The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited,
Dindigul Region, Dindigul-4. ... Respondents/Appellants
-vs-
R.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioner/Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 05.01.2023 made in W.P.(MD)No.8456 of 2019 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondent : Mr.S.Govindan
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
The Managing Director and General Manager of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited have preferred this intra-court
appeal feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated
05.01.2023 in W.P.(MD)No.8456 of 2019.
2. In the said writ petition, the respondent/writ petitioner had prayed
for a mandamus to revise and drop the punishment of increment cut for a
period of 18 months with cumulative effect and for payment of wages for the
suspension period from 20.12.2011 to 18.01.2012 in terms of Clause 61 of the
12(3) Settlement dated 30.09.1992.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the above punishment was
imposed on him in view of the charge that he caused the death of a passenger
by rash and negligent driving. However, when the writ petitioner was tried for
the same offence, it was proved that the deceased was travelling in foot board
and the offence not having been proved, he was acquitted by the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti in C.C.No.80 of 2012 by a
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
judgment dated 10.08.2017. Once the writ petitioner is acquitted by the
criminal Court, by virtue of Clause 61 of the 12(3) Settlement, dated
30.09.1992 entered into between the Management and the employees, the
Management has to revisit the punishment and drop punishment. This was
not done and hence, the writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the judgment passed in the
criminal case and considered an earlier judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.
587 of 2021 and considered the fact that the deceased was travelling in the
foot board, exercised the discretion and modified the punishment from
increment cut for a period of 18 months with cumulative effect to that of
increment cut for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by
the same, this appeal is filed.
5. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that Clause 61 of the 12(3) Settlement would come
into force if only the criminal Court has acquitted on merits. By relying upon
the concluding paragraph 12 of the judgment of the learned District Munsif
cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, he would submit that the writ petitioner
was acquitted only by giving him the benefit of doubt and therefore, he is not
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
entitled for revisiting or revising the punishment already imposed on him and
therefore, would pray that the order of the learned Single Judge calls for
interference by this Court.
6. Per contra, Mr.S.Govindan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent by taking this Court to the other parts of the judgment would
contend that the writ petitioner is honourably acquitted.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
8. The question as to whether the writ petitioner was acquitted on mere
benefit of doubt or on merits, should not be decided by reading the final
paragraph of the judgment alone, but by reading the judgment as a whole. A
perusal of the judgment of the criminal Court, it is clear that there was
absolutely no evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the writ
petitioner. The witnesses P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have categorically stated
that they were in middle of the bus and did not notice about the falling of the
deceased, who was travelling in the foot board. Further, during the trial it
transpired that the deceased was travelling in the foot board and that the bus
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
was not running in a high speed as alleged but it is just started from the bus
stop and there was also a speed breaker. Considering all the above, and
finding that there is no evidence at all, the acquittal has been granted.
Therefore, it can be seen that the writ petitioner is acquitted on merits so as to
claim the benefit of re-visitation of punishment as per Clause 61 of the 12(3)
Settlement entered into between the Management and the employees. In that
view of the matter, when the learned Single Judge after taking this into
account, have not even exonerated the respondent fully but had only reduced
the punishment into one of increment cut without cumulative effect, we see no
grounds to interfere in the matter.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
21.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.A.(MD) No.1575 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.12206 of 2023
21.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
