Allowed

A.Arumugam v. The Managing Director

Madras HC6 Jan 2023WP/3080/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a departmental punishment order imposing stoppage of increments on a conductor following acquittal in the related criminal case and lack of domestic enquiry. The court directed the respondents to restore service and monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned punishment order dated 10.07.2015; direction to pay back increments and other deprived benefits.

A.Arumugam Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

A.Arumugam

...Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem - 7.

¶11

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem - 7.

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Mettur Branch, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned punishment order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

¶18

10.07.2015 vide Ko.No.211/2222/T6/TNSTC/2013 and quash the same, consequently direct respondents to provide all increments and other service and monetary benefits on par with others.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Babu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Babu, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

The petitioner, while serving as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation, was levelled with a charge that he was implicated in a criminal case in Crime No.522 of 2013, through a charge memo dated 30.05.2013. Pursuant to the charge memo, the second respondent herein had imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, through the impugned order dated 10.07.2015.

¶24

Pending the writ petition, the criminal case levelled against the petitioner ended in a judgement of acquittal on 29.11.2021.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/6

¶27

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

¶28

The impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside predominantly on two grounds. First of all, in service jurisprudence, when a permanent employee is sought to be proceeded with a departmental action, a domestic enquiry requires to be conducted by giving due opportunities to the delinquent officer and thereafter, a final decision needs to be taken. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted, after the charges were framed against the petitioner and hence, the consequential punishment imposed by the second respondent, cannot be sustained.

¶29

Secondly, the only charge against the petitioner herein is for his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.522 of 2013. Now that the criminal case has ended in a judgement of acquittal, the charge itself becomes baseless. The charge against the petitioner was not for the over tacts attributed to him in the criminal offence, but a mere charge of his involvement in the criminal case. In view of his acquittal, the impugned order of punishment also requires to be set aside.

¶30

For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 is quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

¶34

to pass appropriate orders, disbursing all the service and monetary benefits

¶35

that may have been deprived to him, owing to the impugned order dated 10.07.2015. Such orders shall be passed by the second respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands thus allowed. No costs.

¶36

06.01.2023

¶37

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

¶41

¶42

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem - 7.

¶43

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., No.12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem - 7.

¶44

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Mettur Branch, Mettur Dam, Salem District.

¶45

5/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

M.S.RAMESH,J.

hvk

W.P.No.3080 of 2019

¶51

06.01.2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

6/6

A.Arumugam v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Arumugam v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Miss.S.Lalithambal, Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Elangovan Vs The Principal Secretary to

A.Rangaraj Vs The Director of Local Fund Audit

I.K.Kanniappan Vs Tamil nadu generation and

E.Anbu Vs Thiru. Arjunan

V.Vinayabharathi Vs Tmt.Mythili K.Rajendiran IAS and 2 others