Allowed

C.Selvaraju v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Madras HC13 Aug 2024WP/3199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A conductor challenged a show cause notice issued with an enquiry report after an ex parte domestic enquiry. The court found no record that he was served notice of the enquiry and noted the enquiry report contained no charge, quashed the show cause notice, and permitted the Corporation to conduct a fresh domestic enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice dated 28.01.2020 quashed; liberty to respondents to issue fresh notice, complete fresh domestic enquiry, then issue second show cause notice. No costs.

C.Selvaraju Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.08.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.3199 of 2020 and WMP.No.3712 of 2020

¶7

C.Selvaraju ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, 12, Ramakrishna Road,

¶10

Salem 636 007

¶11

2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Head Office, Salem Region, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636 007

¶12

3.The Branch Manager, Tiruchengode Branch, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Salem) Ltd., Salem Division, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the show cause notice in Ku.No.536-143/18-D5-TNSTC (Salem) 2018 dated 28.01.2010 on the file of the 2^nd respondent, quash the same.

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondents : Mr.M.Ashwin, Standing Counsel

¶17

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause

¶20

notice issued by the second respondent dated 28.01.2020.

¶21

The petitioner is working as Conductor in the respondents' Transport Corporation since 14.08.2007. While being so, the petitioner involved in union activities and had given voice for labour rights as well as consumer rights. Therefore, the management had developed vindictive attitude towards the petitioner. In the result, the petitioner was transferred on three occasions. While being so, the petitioner was not allotted any duty from 05.07.2018 although he was reporting for duty. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in WP.No.24900 of 2018 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to knowledge that he was transferred, that too without serving any copy of the transfer order. It was produced before this Court and the same was also challenged in WP.No.27862 of 2018. This Court passed interim order not to relieve the petitioner from the said post. While

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

¶25

being so, the petitioner was served with the impugned show cause notice dated 28.01.2020 annexing the enquiry report.

¶26

On perusal of the enquiry report, revealed that the petitioner

¶27

was served with notice for domestic enquiry, in which the petitioner failed to appear. Therefore, he was set ex parte and issued the second show cause notice. For the past four years, the writ petition is pending without filing any counter. Further, the show cause notice also does not reveal that the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and he was called for enquiry. In fact, enquiry report does not consist of any charge.

¶28

In view of the above, the impugned show cause notice cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice dated 28.01.2020 on the file of the second respondent is quashed. The second respondent is at liberty to issue fresh notice for conducting domestic enquiry and, after completion of domestic enquiry, to issue second show cause notice.

¶29

With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

¶33

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

13.08.2024

¶35

Neutral citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶36

To 1.Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

¶40

12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636 007 2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Head Office, Salem Region, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636 007 3.The Branch Manager, Tiruchengode Branch, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Salem) Ltd., Salem Division, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District

¶41

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶42

lok

¶43

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

W.P.No.3199 of 2020

13.08.2024

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Selvaraju v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Selvaraju v. Tamil Nadu State Transport

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

Sulthan Dulkkarunai Vs the Chief Executive Officer

G.Venkatachalam Vs The District Collector

S.Govindarajan Vs The Commissioner

D.Manohar, Vs The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of State Tax

Gopalakrishnan Vs The Regional Accounts officer(Audit)

A.Gopal Vs The Director of Elementary Education