Madras High Court
M.Rathinam vs The Managing Director on 14 February, 2025
2025:MHC:408
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 06.02.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 14.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
WP(MD)No.15038 of 2021
M.Rathinam Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Kumbakonam 612001, Thanjavur
2. The Financial Advisor Cum CAO, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Kumbakonam 612001, Thanjavur
3. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Nagapattinam
4. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Nagapattinam Respondent(s)
Prayer:- This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the
Respondents in imposing “ticket book recovery of Rs.73,341/- on the Petitioner
towards the face value of unused/unsold missing ticket books, as illegal and
arbitrary and further directing the Respondents to refund the recovery amount
of Rs.73,341/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the Petitioner.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.K.Gokul
For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.Balasubramanian
ORDER
1. This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
Respondents in imposing “ticket book recovery of Rs.73,341/-” on the
Petitioner towards the face value of unused/unsold missing ticket books,
as illegal and arbitrary and further, directing the Respondents to refund
the recovery amount of Rs.73,341/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the
Petitioner.
2. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Writ Petition and
necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-
(a) The Petitioner was appointed in the 1 st Respondent Corporation, as a
daily wage Conductor on 22.01.1988 and he retired from the service as
a Selection Grade Driver on 31.03.2020 on attaining superannuation.
(b) The Petitioner was performing duty on 12.10.2019 in Route No.39C, in
the Vehicle No. TN-68-N-0963 in its 08.30 p.m. Trip at Nagapattinam
from Nagapattinam to Erode and its trip completed and halted at Erode
Bus Stand at 05.45 a.m on 13.10.2019. Thereafter, he went to the
Common Toilet from the Erode Bus Stand and when again returned back
to the halted bus in the early morning on the same day, he found that
the bag, consisting of unsold/unused ticket books, which was kept inside
the bus, was missing. Immediately, he gave a complaint, dated
13.10.2019 to the Erode Town Police Station, which was received at
10.00 hours and he was issued with a receipt in CSR.No. 216 of 2019 by
the concerned Police. Thereafter, the Petitioner also immediately
informed the 4th Respondent, Branch Manager, about the incident
through the cell phone and also by a letter dated, 18.10.2019. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
Police is investigating the missing of bag, containing unsold/unused
ticket books and till date, it has not been recovered.
(c) While so, the Petitioner was issued with a charge Memo in
TNSTC/D14/509/19, dated 09.12.2019 by the 4th Respondent, stating as
to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the missing
unsold/unused ticket books to the tune Rs.73,341/-. In the mean time,
without passing any written order, the 5th Respondent orally insisted the
Petitioner to pay the face value of the missing unsold/unused ticket
books to the tune of Rs.73,341/-, failing which he will not be allowed to
retire. Since the Petitioner was due to retire on 31.03.2020 and hence,
the Petitioner was constrained to remit the said amount, vide receipt
No.FQ-0037798, dated 19.10.2019. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a
representation dated 30.07.2021, requesting the respondents not to
recover the said amount and to refund the recovery amount of the
missing unsold/unused ticket books However, the said sum was
recovered from the Petitioner. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition
has been, seeking the relief, as stated above.
3. This Court heard Mr.K.Gokul, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.P.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel for the Respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the action of the
Respondents, in recovering a sum of Rs.73,341/- being the face value of
the missing unsold/unused ticket books, which were lost due to therft, on
the ground that for the missing unsold/unused ticket books due to theft,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
when he made a complaint immediately to the Police at the instance of the
4th Respondent, no recovery can be made, as per Clause 29 of the
Settlement, dated 28.09.1995, entered into between the Trade Unions and
the Respondent Corporation under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes
Act. Hence, such action of the Respondents is in total violation of the
above said settlement and the recovery by way of an oral order is illegal
and hence, he prays for refund of the said amount with interest.
5. In support of his contention that when the missing unsold/unused ticket
books was not due to any negligence on the part of a bus conductor, no
amount can be recovered from him, the learned counsel for the Petitioner
has relied on the following decisions:-
i. 2003 ILLJ 1021 Mad (Palanisamy Vs. Management of Rani
Mangammal Transport Corporation Limited)
ii. 2008 (1) MLJ 224 (Management of Rani Mangammal Transport
Corporation Limited Vs. M.Palanisamy)
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that
the ticket books are issued to the Conductors with the cash value of such
ticket books and that since there would be every scope for abusing those
missing unsold/unused ticket books for persons to undertake travel,
without paying the necessary value of the tickets, the Corporation would
be put serious prejudice and monetary loss and hence, the impugned
action of the Respondents in recovering the face value of those tickets is
in order.
7. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the contentions put
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire
materials available on record.
8. The Petitioner was working as a Conductor in the 1 st Respondent
Corporation and he was due to retire on 31.03.2020.
9. While the Petitioner was performing his duty on 12.10.2019 in Route No.
39C, in the Vehicle No. TN-68-N-0963 in its 08.30 PM Trip at
Nagapattinam from Nagapattinam to Erode and its Trip completed and
halted at Erode at 05.45 a.m. on 13.10.2019. At that time, he went to toilet
and when he came back to the halted bus after some time, the Petitioner
found the bag, containing unsold/unused ticket books, to be missing in the
halted bus on 13.10.2019 at 5.45 a.m.
10. Admittedly, the Petitioner had lost the bag containing unsold ticket books
to the face value of Rs.73,341/- due to theft, as is evident from CSR.No.
216 of 2019 and after theft of the bag, the Petitioner also immediately
informed about the incident to the 4th Respondent, Branch Manager of the
Transport Corporation, by his letter dated 18.10.2019. Since he was due
to retire on 31.03.2020, at the oral instructions of the Respondents, the
Petitioner was constrained to remit the said amount, vide receipt
No.FQ-0037798, dated 19.10.2019. On a perusal of the records, it is seen
that there is no order by the Respondents to recover the said amount.
Thereafter, the Petitioner was allowed to retired on his due date.
11. As per Clause 29 of the Settlement, dated 28.09.1995, entered into
between the Trade Unions and the Respondent Corporation under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, while on duty, if the ticket books are
lost due to riot, accident, theft and robbery and when there is a complaint
made regarding such incident, then there would be no recovery of the face
value of the lost ticket books from the concerned Conductor for such loss
of lost ticket books.
12. It is clear from that above said Clause 29 that the action of the
Respondents in recovering the face of the unsold ticket books, which were
lost due to theft, from the Petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and hence, it
cannot be sustained, as it is in violation of the Clause 29 of the above said
Settlement, dated 28.09.1995.
13. The issue involved in this Writ Petition has come up before the Division
Bench of the Principal Bench of this Court, on an earlier occasion, in the
case of Palanisamy Vs. Management of Rani Mangammal Transport
Corporation Limited reported in 22008 (1) MLJ 224, wherein, in similar
circumstances, the Division Bench of the Principal Bench of this Court was
pleased to observe in paragraph 4, 5 and 6 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
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 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.
5. Viewing in that respect, we are in full agreement with the
conclusion of the learned Single Judge as has been set out in
paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order impugned in this appeal for all the
above stated reasons, we are convinced that the order impugned in
this appeal does not call for interference. We therefore do not find
any merit in this appeal.
6. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.”
14. Admittedly, in this case also, as stated above, the Petitioner had given a
complaint immediately after missing of the unsold/unused ticket books
from the halted bus and diligently informed the 4th Respondent, Branch
Manager, in writing about the missing of unsold/unused ticket books, by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
letter dated, 18.10.2019. A copy of the CSR.No. 216 of 2019, dated
13.10.2019, establishes the said factum of missing of unsold/unused ticket
books on that date. Till date, it is not known as to whether the lost ticket
books due to theft are recovered or not. Further, it is clear that the
Petitioner had taken diligent steps to duly inform the Respondent
Corporation about the missing of unsold/unused ticket books and thus,
there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in respect of the
missing of unsold/unused ticket books. Hence, the above judgment is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. Thus, the action of Respondent, in imposing “Ticket Book Recovery” of
Rs.73,341/- on the Petitioner towards the face value of unused/unsold
missing ticket books, appears to be unjustified and illegal, in view of the
Clause 29 of the Settlement, dated 28.09.1995, entered into between the
Trade Unions and the Respondent Corporation under Section 12(3) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, such action of the Respondents is in total
violation of the above settlement and the recovery made against the
Petitioner by way of an oral order is illegal and against the provisions of
law. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to get the recovered amount of
Rs.73,341/- with interest from the Respondent Corporation.
16. In the result, in the light of the above said observations and discussions
made above and in the light of the referred decisions, this Writ Petition is
allowed, as prayed for. The Respondents are directed to refund the
recovered amount of Rs.73,341/- with simple interest at the rate of 6%
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
p.a. from the date of recovery of the said amount till date. The payment
shall be made to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.
14.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Neutral Citation
Srcm
To
1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Kumbakonam 612001, Thanjavur
2. The Financial Advisor Cum CAO, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Kumbakonam 612001, Thanjavur
3. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Nagapattinam
4. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(KMBU) Limited, Nagapattinam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).15038 of 2021
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Srcm
Pre-Delivery Order in
14.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
