Madras High Court
M.Subramani vs The Managing Director on 18 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
2025:MHC:429
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 06.02.2025
Pronounced On : 18.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10324 of 2019 & 4220 of 2020
W.A.(MD)No.1192 of 2019
M.Subramani ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Madurai Division-4 Ltd.,
Dindigul.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Madurai. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of letters Patent against
the order dated 04.03.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.12730 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Appadurai
For R1 : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
W.A.(MD)No.717 of 2020
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Madurai Ltd.,
Dindigul Region,
Bypass Road, Collectorate P.O.,
Dindingul-624 004. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Madurai.
2.M.Subramani ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of letters Patent against
the order dated 04.03.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.11852 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For R1 : Mr.K.Appadurai
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
These writ appeals have been filed against the common order
passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.12730 & 11852 of 2009 dated 04.03.2019.
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their
rank before the Labour Court. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
2(i). The case of the Management is that the workman collected
excess fare from one of the passenger and failed to refund the same to the
said passenger. The said passenger gave a complaint about the
misconduct of the workman. Charge memo dated 05.02.2000 issued to
the Workman and the Workman had also given his explanation on
15.02.2000 to the said charge memo. The Enquiry Officer held that the
charges framed against the Workman were proved. Thereafter, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court after
considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side,
passed the award dated 12.05.2004 in I.D.No.105 of 2003 directing the
Management to reinstate the Workman in their service. However, the
Labour Court rejected the claim of back-wages. Aggrieved over the
same, the Management has preferred W.P.(MD)No.11852 of 2009 to
quash the Labour Court's award and the Workman filed W.P.(MD)No.
12730 of 2009 seeking relief of Mandamus to the Management for
reinstatement as well as for payment of back-wages. The learned Single
Judge of this Court, vide common order dated 04.03.2019, dismissed the
said writ petitions. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeals
have been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman would
submit that when the balance amount could not be given to the passenger
by the Conductor, after taking the ticket fare, an endorsement will be
made on the back side of the ticket that money is due. When the
passenger approached the Corporation claiming the balance due, the
Corporation ought to have directed the Workman to settle the due, as per
the endorsement made on the back side of the ticket. On the contrary, the
Corporation had initiated departmental action, which is not in accordance
with law.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Management would submit that the Corporation Employees are bound to
follow the Certified Standing Orders and any of the violation of the
standing orders would liable to be punished. He would further submit
that the Workman was committed severe misconduct, in accordance with
the Certified Standing Orders and hence, charges were framed and after
due enquiry, the charges were proved. The Workman already committed
four misappropriations and he had record of 85 misconduct. The Labour
Court was not at all seen the past records of the Workman, even though
the Labour Court was confirmed the charges, which are proved against
him. To Strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 3 SCC 254 in a case of
Divisional Controller, KSTRC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T.Mane to show that
when an employee is found guilty of misappropriating money from
public, the Corporation losing confidence in such an employee and
awarding punishment of dismissal from service is sustainable.
5.We have considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the materials available in the record.
6.It is seen from the records that the appellant, Thiru
M.Subramani was appointed as Conductor on 05.04.1988. While he was
discharging his duty as Conductor on 08.12.1999 in the bus bearing
Reg.No.TN57/N0852 plying in the route from Kumuli to Palani, on
09.12.1999, a passenger has given complaint to the Corporation that the
Conductor told him that the fare from Kumuli to Oddanchatram was
Rs.55/- and accordingly, the passenger paid Rs.110/-for two tickets. On
the next day while the passenger verified the ticket and found that fare
quoted in the ticket is Rs.33.50 only. The total value of two ticket comes
to Rs.67/-. Thus the Conductor had collected an excess fare of Rs.43/-
and have not accounted the excess amount collected from the traveller to
the Corporation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
7.It is also seen from the records that since the act of the
Conductor was a severe misconduct in accordance with the Certified
Standing Orders, charges were framed against him and he was suspended
from service pending enquiry, by an order dated 17.01.2000. Three
charges were framed against him, which are as follows:-
1.The Workman had collected Rs.110/- from a group
of two passengers, who have travelled from Kumuli to
Oddachatram, but he issued tickets only for Rs.67/-, which is
an offence under clause 16(65) and 16(19) of the Certified
Standing Orders.
2.The balance amount of Rs.43/- neither he had given
to the passengers concerned nor he remitted with the Office
as excess and thereby, the Workman had misappropriated
the corporation revenue which is an offence under Clasu
16(61) and 16(5) of the Certified Standing Orders.
3.The Workman had performed duty dishonestly and
spoil the image of the corporation among the public, which
is an offence under clause 16(12) of the certified standing
order.
Thereafter, the Conductor has submitted his explanation on 15.02.2000,
which was not satisfactory and therefore, an enquiry was conducted by
giving an opportunity. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report dated 15.04.2000 by holding that the Conductor is
guilty of the charges. Therefore, the second show cause notice was issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
to the Conductor on 25.04.2000 proposing the punishment. The
Workman had submitted his explanation on 30.05.2000, which was also
found not satisfactory. Thereafter, the enquiry report was accepted
considering the previous records of the Conductor, where he has suffered
punishment for misappropriation four times and other type of
punishments for 85 cases and finally, the Conductor was dismissed from
the service by an order dated 08.08.2000. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the
Conductor approached the Labour Court, Madurai by way of I.D. No.
105 of 2003. The Labour Court in its award dated 27.08.2014, concluded
that the charges are proved and the misappropriation also proved and the
findings of the Enquiry Officer also accepted. The Labour Court
observed that the individual has not committed any serious
misappropriation and the punishment given is in excess and further,
directed the Management to reinstate the Conductor into service, within
two months with continuity of service, but without back-wages and other
benefits.
8.It is pertinent to mention that there is evidence of passengers,
who had travelled in the bus and has given written complaint along with
the tickets issued by the Conductor, which establishes the misconduct of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
the Conductor, based on which, a finding was given that the Conductor
was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Based on the said findings the
Discipline Authority issued an order of dismissal. The Labour Court set
aside the punishment solely on the ground that misappropriation
committed by the Conductor is not serious one and the punishment is in
excess and therefore, directed the Management to reinstate the Conductor
with continuity of service without back-wages and other benefits.
9.At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3644/2011 between U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and Pradeep Kumar, as follows:-
“9. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our
attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Regional
Manager, U.P. SRTC, v. Hoti Lal, [2003| 3 SCC 605 wherein,
this Court has very categorically held that a mere statement
that it is disproportionate would not suffice to substitute a
lighter punishment. This Court held as under:
"The court or tribunal while dealing with the
quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why
it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with
the proved charges. The scope for interference is very
limited and restricted to exceptional cases. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
impugned order of the High Court no reasons
whatsoever have been indicated as to why the
punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to
give reasons amounts to denial of justice. A mere
statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. It
is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the
type of duty performed and similar relevant
circumstances which go into the decision-making process
while considering whether the punishment is
proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged
employee holds a position of trust where honesty and
integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would
not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.
Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.
Where the person deals with public money or is engaged
in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity,
the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a
must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background,
conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court are
not proper."
10.It is settled law that it is not the amount of money
misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment,
on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to
be taken into consideration. The Conductor/Workman is found to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
committed misappropriation of funds and there is nothing wrong in the
Corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a
punishment of dismissal.
11.Therefore, we are of the firm view that the Conductor has
committed serious misconduct as per the Certified Standing Orders and
dismissing the writ petition filed by the Management in W.P.(MD)
No.11852 of 2009 by the learned Single Judge is not correct and there
are merits in the writ appeal filed by the Management and therefore, we
are inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(MD)No.11852 of 2009. Accordingly, the writ appeal filed
by the Management in W.A.(MD)No.717 of 2020 is allowed and the writ
appeal filed by the Conductor/Workman in W.A.(MD)No.1192 of 2019
is dismissed and the Labour Court award, dated 12.05.2004 in I.D.No.
105 of 2003 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(G.R.S., J.) & (M.J.R., J.)
18.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, Madurai Division-4 Ltd.,
Dindigul.
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 & 717 of 2020
G.R.SWAMINATHAN.J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gns
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)Nos.1192 of 2019 &
717 of 2020
18.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
