Madras High Court

The Management Of vs A. Selvaraj on 25 June, 2025

W.P. No.6362 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

W.P. No.6362 of 2022
and W.M.P. No.6440 of 2022

The Management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Trichy Region,
Trichy - 620 001. .. Petitioner

vs.
1. A. Selvaraj

2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,
DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai. .. Respondents

PRAYER: The Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the

records pertaining to the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent

in Approval Petition No.44 of 2019 and quash the same and consequently,

direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated

31.01.2019 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.

For Petitioner : Mr. Murali Vinodh

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:19 pm )
W.P. No.6362 of 2022

For Respondents : Mr. K.M. Ramesh, Senior Counsel
for Mr. S. Sakthivel [for R1]

Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal
Addl. Government Pleader [for R2]
ORDER

This Writ petition has been filed as against the order passed by the 2nd

respondent in Approval Petition No.44 of 2019 dated 09.08.2021 and

consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner

dated 31.01.2019 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.

2. The short facts necessary to dispose the Writ petition are as

follows:

The 1st respondent was working as a 'Driver' in the Petitioner

Corporation. While he was joining duty in the petitioner Corporation, he

produced his S.S.L.C. Marksheet in Reg. No.605462/APR/92, which was

fraudulently created by altering the marks. The above said act is against the

Rule 24(4) & 24(40) of the Standing Order of the petitioner Corporation.

Therefore, the petitioner Corporation issued a Charge Memo dated 16.08.2018

against the 1st respondent, for which, the 1st respondent submitted his reply

on 31.08.2018. Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the 1st

respondent, the petitioner Corporation conducted a domestic enquiry. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:19 pm )

Enquiry Officer issued a notice dated 06.10.2018 to the 1st respondent to

participate in the enquiry on 17.10.2018. The 1st respondent also participated

in the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer rendered findings

that the charges against the 1st respondent were proved. The Disciplinary

Authority issued a second Show Cause Notice on the 1st respondent along

with the copy of the enquiry report and the same was not replied by the 1st

respondent. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a punishment of

dismissal of service through an order dated 31.01.2019. Further, the petitioner

Management filed an application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act before the 2nd respondent in A.P. No.44 of 2019. The

2nd respondent refused to grant approval and the said order is now under

challenge through this Writ petition by the Management.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management would

submit that the 1st respondent produced his S.S.L.C. Marksheet by altering the

marks at the time of entering into the petitioner Corporation as 'Driver',

thereby the petitioner Corporation initiated Disciplinary proceedings and the

Enquiry officer rendered findings after giving opportunity to the 1st

respondent to take part in the enquiry proceedings and the report of the

Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and after

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:19 pm )

furnishing copy of the enquiry report to the 1st respondent workman, a

punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the 1st respondent.

Further, the petitioner Corporation filed an Approval petition before the 2nd

respondent after complying all the formalities as per the guidelines issued by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works reported

in AIR 1978(C) 1004. However, the 2nd respondent erroneously declined to

grant approval. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent

is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit

that the charge against the 1st respondent was that the S.S.L.C. Marksheet

submitted by the 1st respondent in Reg. No.605462/APR/92 was sent to the

Directorate of Government Examinations and the same was compared with

original document. At that time, they found that the certificate submitted by

the 1st respondent is bogus and he has produced the same, by altering the

marksheets. In order to prove the same, the Disciplinary Authority failed to

examine the Staff of the Directorate of Government Examinations and they

failed to examine the material witness and there is no clear evidence as to

which document is genuine one. In the document produced by the 1st

respondent, there is no any alterations in the marks, which was produced

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:19 pm )

before the petitioner Management at the time of joining duty. Therefore, there

is no prima facie case made out based on the acceptable evidence. The

original document from the Directorate of Government Examinations has not

been marked. Therefore, the Authority passed a reasoned order and declined

to grant approval. The order passed by the 2nd respondent is in accordance

with law and therefore, the present Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. In this case, the charge against the 1st respondent is that at the time of

joining duty as a 'driver' in the petitioner Corporation, he produced the

S.S.L.C marksheet in Reg. No.605462/APR/92 and later, on verification, it

was found that the said marks mentioned in the mark sheet submitted by the

1st respondent, are not tallied with the marksheet issued by the Directorate of

Government Examinations. For the said act, a Charge Memo was issued to

the 1st respondent and a domestic enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry

proceedings, no any witness from the Directorate of Government

Examinations was examined to ascertain whether the document submitted by

the 1st respondent during the time of his joining in the petitioner Corporation,

is a forged one or not. There is no evidence as to who forged the document.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:19 pm )

Though the petitioner Corporation had sent a letter to the Directorate of

Government Examinations and they also replied the same by stating that there

are differences in the marks obtained by the 1st respondent, there is no

evidence as to who created the forged document and which one is forged

document. Therefore, there is no prima facie evidence to prove that the 1st

respondent has only created the forged marksheet. The failure on the part of

the petitioner to examine the Authority from the Directorate of Government

Examinations, is fatal to the case.

7. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent

has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The

Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam)

Ltd., vs. M. Periyasamy and another in W.A. No.803 of 2024, wherein this

Court, in para no.6, held as follows:-

"6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a charge memo was issued to the 1st respondent/workman for submitting a false certificate, thus, cheating the Corporation and joined duty. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation and domestic enquiry was also conducted. In the enquiry, the false certificates claimed to have been issued by the concerned Educational Officer were marked as management side documents but the person who was alleged to have given the false document was not examined by the management. The principles laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 Lalla Ram Vs. Management of DCM Chemicals, has been correctly followed by the Labour Court and has held that the genuineness of the record sheet of the 1st respondent was not confirmed, as no efforts were taken to examine the officer who issued the certificate to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 04:37:19 pm )

the 1st respondent and also held that there is no prima facie case made out under enquiry for passing the order of dismissal. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Writ Court, confirming the order passed by Labour Court, need not be interfered with".

8. In the case on hand also, the Management failed to examine the

officials from the Directorate of Government Examinations, who issued the

marksheet to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd

respondent declining to grant approval is in order and it does not warrant

interference.

9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that this

Writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

25.06.2025

Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order mjs