Madras High Court

S. Vellaichamy vs The Management Of on 4 March, 2025

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.3141 of 2025


                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 04.03.2025

                                                        CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                            W.P.(MD)No.3141 of 2025


                S. Vellaichamy                                                         ... Petitioner

                                                              Vs

                The Management of
                Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
                Madurai Region,
                Rep by its Managing Director.                  ... Respondent

                PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
                return the amount of Rs.34,263/- recovered from the petitioner towards
                ticket books stolen from the bus on 28.01.2019 together with 18% interest
                per annum, award cost.



                                  For Petitioner             : Mr.S.Arunachalam
                                  For Respondent             : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
                                                               Standing Counsel



                ___________
               Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )
                                                                                         W.P.(MD) No.3141 of 2025




                                                         ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus, directing the

respondent to refund a sum Rs.34,263/-, which was recovered from the

petitioner for the theft of ticket books in the bus.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a ''Conductor'' in the

respondent Corporation on 27.11.1994. The petitioner was entrusted with

ticket books for the purpose of issuing the same to the passengers. While

he was on duty in a bus bearing Registration No. TN 58 N 1656 running

between Melur and Madurai Periyar Bus stand, he kept the unused ticket

books in a bag and placed the same in a dash board. During the tea break,

the unused ticket books kept in a bag were stolen by some unknown

person and on coming to know, the same was intimated by the petitioner

to the respondent Corporation. In this regard, the petitioner has also

lodged a complaint before the Melur Police Station on 28.01.2019. While

so, the respondent Corporation issued a charge memo to the petitioner,

under Rule 16(9 & 14) of the Standing Orders, on 29.01.2019 that the

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

petitioner has lost the pre-printed ticket books worth Rs.34,263/-, due to

his negligence. The petitioner has also submitted his explanation. Not

satisfied with the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension and

thereafter the suspension period from 29.01.2019 to 31.01.2019 has been

treated as leave. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner was forced to

remit a a sum of Rs.34,263/- by the respondent Corporation and therefore,

he had also paid the amount. Now the petitioner has approached this

Court to direct the respondent to refund the said amount.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the respondent Corporation has not made any arrangements for keeping

the unused ticket books in safe custody by the conductors in the bus.

Recovery of amount made by the respondent is against the provisions of

settlement, dated 28.09.2005 made under Section 12(3) of the ID Act,

1947. Clause 29 of the settlement, it was decided that no recovery

proceedings should be initiated against conductors for the loss of ticket

books, if they were lost due to riot, accident, theft etc., According to the

petitioner, for the loss of ticket book, the petitioner has lodged a criminal

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

complaint. Without considering the same, the respondent Corporation

forced the petitioner to remit the amount, which is in violation of

principles of natural justice.

4. The respondent have filed counter affidavit stating that it is

not the case of theft but it is a case of negligence on the part of the

petitioner. After conducting necessary disciplinary proceedings, the

petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently, the suspension

period from 29.01.2019 to 31.01.2019 was treated as leave. According to

the respondent, the petitioner, on his own had remitted the amount for the

loss of ticket books and on after thought, he has filed this writ petition for

refund of the amount. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials available on record.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Clause 29 of

the Settlement under Section 12(3) entered in the year 1995, wherein it

has been stated “gzp nra;Jnfhz;bUf;fpd;w NghJ fytuk;> tpgj;J>

fsT> nfhs;is Nghd;wit eilngw;W mjd; fhuzkhf NghyP];

epiyaj;jpy; tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;bUe;jjjhy; me;j #o;epiyapy;

gazr;rPl;L Gj;jfq;fs; Gj;jfq;fSf;fhd njhif gpbj;jk;

nra;ag;gl khl;lhJ”. It has been specifically stated 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.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 142 of 2012,

dated 16.11.2014 in K.C.Palanisamy Vs TNSTC (Coimbatore) Limited

has reiterated the same and the relevant portion is extracted as under:

“As far as the case in hand is concerned also, the appellant has intimated instantaneously about the loss of unused ticket books both to the police station as well as to the respondent Corporation. Hence no negligence can be attributed against the appellant. Therefore the matter

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

in issue is covered by the Division Bench Judgment referred above. The Learned Single Judge has not considered the said aspect. In the light of the said Division Bench Judgment the order of the Learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.”

8. In another Division Bench Judgment in Rani Mangammal

Transport Corporation Limited Vs M. Palanisamy reported in (2008) 1

MLJ 224, has held as under:

“4.Having heard the learned counsel we find force in submissions of the learned counsel for the re- spondent. 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 negli- gent 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 noth- ing to suggest that no such message was ever sent

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

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 intima- tion, authorities at the Ottanchatram Depot would not have readily come forward to issue the two new ticket books to the respondent. The fact that the re- spondent made police complaint immediately after the conclusion of duty hours on 26.04.1992, also impresses us to hold that the respondent took all dil- igent 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 cumu-

lative 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 de- fraud 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

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

adopting such a course of holding an enquiry, in re- spect 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 re- ported. 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 re- ported 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 appel- lant Corporation prescribed the procedure of hold- ing an enquiry, wherever loss of ticket books are re- ported.”

9. In this present case, the petitioner had intimated the theft of

ticket books to the respondent Corporation and also lodged a police

complaint and therefore, the petitioner is protected under Clause 29 of the

12(3) settlement. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondent

Corporation to refund the amount, which was remitted by the petitioner at

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 10:44:57 am )

the time of his retirement.

10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No

costs.

04.03.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes vrn