Madras High Court
The Management vs The Special Joint Commissioner Of ... on 24 June, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.No.12384 of 2022
and WMP.No.11842 of 2022
The Management,
Tamilnadu State Transport
Corporation (VPM) Ltd.,
Kancheepuram Region,
Ponnerikarai, Bangalore High Ways,
Kancheepuram – 631 552. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound
Chennai.
2.S.Mohanan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
impugned order dated 15.04.2021 passed in A.P.No.3 of 2018 passed by the
1st respondent – Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : M/s. S.Pavithra, Senior Counsel
For Respondents : M/s.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, AGP for R1
: M/s.H.Nandhini for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/managment to quash the
order passed in A.P.No.3 of 2018 dated 15.04.2021 passed by the first
respondent/ Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.
2. The short facts necessary to dispose of this Writ petition are as
follows:-
The second respondent was joined as a conductor in the petitioner
corporation on 06.06.2000. On 05.02.2015, while he was on duty on a bus
bearing Registration No.TN 21/N-1355, travelling from Chennai to
Ponneri, a woman boarded at the Chengundram bus stop and was about to
get down at Chozhavaram. The second respondent, obtained Rs.7 from the
passenger, but he did not give a ticket to her. When the checking inspector
checked the bag of the second respondent, he found a shortage of Rs.219 in
his bag and also found that the second respondent had not issued a ticket to
the passenger for Rs.7. Therefore, a charge memo dated 11.05.2015 was
issued to the second respondent and he submitted his explanation on
19.06.2015. Being not satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry
was conducted, and the enquiry officer rendered findings that the charges
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
against the delinquent were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner/management
called for further representation from the second respondent, after
furnishing copies of the enquiry report. The second respondent also offered
his explanation and the same was not accepted by the disciplinary authority.
Therefore, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal of the
second respondent from service. Subsequently, the management filed an
application before the first respondent for approval in A.P.No.3 of 2018
under Section 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act. The first respondent declined to grant
approval on the grounds that no prima facie case was made out based on
acceptable evidence, that one month's salary had not been paid immediately,
and that the approval petition had not been filed simultaneously along with
the dismissal order of the second respondent. Now, aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner / management has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the second respondent, who was working as a conductor on the bus bearing
Registration No.TN 21/N-1355 Route No.56 B/F from Chennai to Ponneri,
on 05.02.2015, did not issue a ticket to the passenger after obtaining Rs.7
and also there was a shortage of Rs.219 in the cash bag of the second
respondent, thereby a charge memo was issued. He also submitted his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
explanation and the same was not accepted and a domestic enquiry was
conducted. In the domestic enquiry, the second respondent had
participated, and thereafter, the enquiry officer rendered findings that the
charges against the delinquent were proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary
authority after accepting the enquiry report, issued a show cause notice.
The second respondent issued reply and the same was not accepted and
thereafter, the disciplinary authority considering the gravity of the offence
passed the final order by removing the second respondent from service.
Thereafter, the petitioner/management filed an approval petition before the
first respondent, which was dismissed erroneously. Merely because there
was a delay in filing the approval petition and in the payment of one
month's salary, the approval authority denied to grant permission.
Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent is erroneous and the
same is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would
submit that the petitioner / management corporation issued a charge memo
with false allegations, and the same was explained by the second
respondent. Without accepting the explanation, a domestic enquiry was
conducted without following the principles of natural justice, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
enquiry officer erroneously rendered findings as if the charges were proved.
In fact, there is no prima facie case based on the acceptable evidence and
the approval petition was not filed simultaneously along with the dismissal
order and no one month's salary was given immediately after the dismissal
order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the approval authority
correctly declined to grant permission. Therefore, the approval authority
passed a reasoned order and the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
6. This petition is filed by the petitioner / management challenging
the order of the approval authority, by declining to grant approval for the
dismissal order passed by the department against the second respondent.
According to the petitioner, the charges levelled against the second
respondent were proved, and sufficient opportunity was offered to the
second respondent during the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. The
approval authority also confirmed the following of the principles of natural
justice and the opportunity given to the delinquent during the enquiry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
proceedings. However, it dismissed the petition on the grounds of dealy in
filing the approval petition.
7. According to the second respondent, no prima facie case is made
out based on the acceptable evidence, and in the domestic enquiry, the
management failed to examine the competent witnesses, who are essential
to prove the delinquency. One month's salary was also not given
immediately after the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority,
and there is a delay in filing the approval petition. The disciplinary
authority passed the order by removing the second respondent from service
on 06.03.2017, and the approval petition was filed belatedly on 23.10.2018.
Therefore, the approval authority declined to grant permission based on the
guidelines issued in Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram
Vs DCM Chemical Works case reported in AIR 1978(C) 1004. The
approval authority passed the detailed order by holding that sufficient
opportunity was given to the delinquent in the domestic proceedings, that
there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that there was
no victimization. However, no prima facie case was made out based on the
acceptable evidence and the so- called passenger was not examined as a
witness, and the branch manager was also not examined. Thereby, no prima
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
facie case is made out through acceptable evidence and one month's salary
was paid belatedly and there is a delay in filing the approval petition, and it
was not filed immediately after the dismissal order passed by the
disciplinary authority. Therefore, the above said reasons stated by the 1st
respondent is within the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Lalla Ram Vs DCM Chemical Works case (cited Supra). Therefore,
there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Approval
authority and it does not warrant any interference.
8. In view of the above said discussions, this Court is of the opinion
that this petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,
this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24.06.2025
drl
To
1.The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Compound
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.,
drl
24.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 06:17:08 pm )
