Madras High Court
The General Manager vs R.Jeyabalan on 8 September, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth, P.T. Asha
W.A.(MD)No.2558 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.A.(MD)No.2558 of 2025
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transportation (Kum) Ltd.,
Karaikudi Region,
Maruthupathi, Managiri,
Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ...Appellant/Respondent
Vs.
R.Jeyabalan ...Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set
aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.7542 of 2024 dated 27.03.2024 on
the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ramaiah
For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Vijay Nivas
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
W.A.(MD)No.2558 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.T.ASHA, J.)
This Intra Court appeal is filed by the respondent in
W.P(MD)No.7542 of 2024 challenging the order passed therein.
2. The brief facts which has given rise to the above writ appeal
are as follows:
(a) The respondent was working as a Driver in the appellant
Corporation at their Kamuthi Branch. On 21.05.2023 at about 03.45 p.m.,
when he was driving the appellant bus bearing Registration No.TN63 N
1357, as he neared Manjur on the Paramakudi to Ramnad road, one
Sivasakthi riding a two wheeler suddenly crossed the road oblivious of
the warning horn given by the petitioner. The respondent had
immediately swerved the bus to the extreme left in order to avoid
colliding with the rider of the two wheeler. However, the two wheeler
rider dashed the front side of the bus and died on the spot on account of
head injury as he was not wearing his helmet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
(b) An F.I.R was registered in Crime No.130 of 2023 by
Paramakudi Taluk Police in respect of the above accident and after a
thorough enquiry, an “action dropped” report was submitted by them as
there was no mistake on the part of the respondent. However, the
appellant had suspended the respondent from service vide proceedings,
dated 22.05.2023.
(c) The respondent would submit that though action was
dropped, the appellant had issued the impugned charge memo, dated
29.05.2023 in respect of the very same accident, for which action had
been dropped by the police after thorough investigation and after holding
that there was no mistake on the part of the respondent. The respondent
therefore challenged the charge memo by filing W.P(MD)No.7542 of
2024. The appellant had not filed any counter affidavit, but had made
their oral submissions before the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
(d) The learned Single Judge relying upon Clause 61 of the
settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act entered into
between the employees of the appellant Corporation and the appellant
Corporation, quashed the charge memo. Challenging the same, the
appellant Corporation is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the order was passed in W.P(MD)No.7542 of 2024 at the
admission stage itself without affording an opportunity to the appellant
Corporation to submit their counter affidavit and defend their case cannot
be sustained. Further, the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate
that it is against a charge memo that the writ petition has been filed. He
also contended that this writ petition could be used as a precedent for
other persons to escape from punishment being imposed for grievous
charges.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the
other hand would submit that the appellant and the respondent have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
already entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, in and by which it was clear that where an employee is
honourably acquitted in a criminal case, a domestic enquiry on the very
same charges shall not be initiated. The settlement further provided that
in case the acquittal is on benefit of doubt, then the domestic enquiry can
be proceeded with.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The issue as to whether the petitioner can be subjected to
domestic enquiry though he has been honourably acquitted is placed for
our consideration. The records would show that the appellant Transport
Corporation and its employees had entered into a settlement under
Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Clause 61 of this settlement
provides as follows:
“61. Where a driver involved in an accident and held
guilty of charge in domestic enquiry, subsequently, honourably
acquitted in the criminal case, the decision in the disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
case on the same charge may be revised based on the orders of
the Court. However, if the acquittal is by benefit of doubt, no
such revision is necessary.”
7. Therefore it has been agreed between the appellant and its
employees that where an employee has been honourably acquitted in a
criminal case, then in the domestic enquiry also, he shall stand absolved.
The police have submitted an action dropped report on the ground that
the respondent was in no way responsible for the accident. The domestic
enquiry itself is only based on the accident and the consequent death of
the two wheeler rider. Therefore, since the genesis for the domestic
enquiry as well as for the criminal proceedings is the accident and the
death of the two wheeler rider, in view of Clause 61 of the settlement
under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the charge memo has
to be quashed and it has been rightly quashed by the learned Single
Judge. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order passed in
W.P(MD)No.7542 of 2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
8. Hence, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition/s is/are closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [P.T.A.J.,]
08.09.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
P.T. ASHA, J.
gbg
08.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 10:40:56 am )
