The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order imposing a six-month increment stoppage punishment on a trade union leader. The court set aside the order, finding no enquiry was conducted and natural justice was violated, and remitted the matter for a fresh inquiry.
Impugned order set aside; matter remitted for enquiry with opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021 and WMP(MD)No.7931 of 2021
S.Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam), Karaikudi Region, Managri (PO), Maruthupathi, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertainng to the impugned order of the respondent in Ref.No.TNSTC/TC/T3/9/19, dated 17.06.2019 quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier For Respondents : Mr.P.Balasubramani,
Special Government Pleader
1/6
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner / leader of the trade union was imposed with a
punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of six months, which is challenged in this writ petition.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the union activities of the petitioner and in order to intimidate the petitioner he was imposed with a punishment. He also submits that punishment has been imposed on the petitioner without even conducting any enquiry and without furnishing the documents based on which the charge memo was issued to this petitioner.
2/6
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
reported in 2004 (3) CTC 1 . He further submits that as against the order of punishment the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Managing Director and without exhausting the appeal remedy as per the Standing Orders of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
4.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.
5.The petitioner claims that he is the Regional Treasurer of the registered trade union. He was issued with a charge memo dated 19.03.2019 alleging that he had prevented the conductors, from entering the invoice as instructed by the Superintendent and also questioned the Superintendent for such instructions by her. Based on the complaint of the Superintendent, this charge memo dated 19.03.2019 was issued as against the petitioner.
6.The petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the management to produce certain documents including the complaint and also sought time for submitting his explanation based on those documents. However it was not produced to him. The Corporation issued a show cause
3/6
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
notice to this petitioner on 19.05.2019 that they have decided to impose punishment. The petitioner has also raised his objections to the second show cause notice that the petitioner was not served with the basic documents, complaint. While so the Corporation has not conducted any enquiry and without considering the objections to the second show cause notice dated 19.05.2019, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment by order dated 17.06.2019.
7.The order of punishment dated 17.05.2019 is challenged in this writ petition and it has also been entertained by admitting this writ petition in the year 2021. At this distant point of time, this Court is not inclined to direct the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. Admittedly the petitioner was imposed with a punishment, without furnishing the documents and without even conducting any enquiry. It is in the opinion of this Court, violative of principle of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
8.Accordingly the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent to conduct an enquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision in accordance with the Standing
4/6
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
Orders of the respondent Corporation. With this direction this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.11.2024
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No DSK To The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam), Karaikudi Region, Managri (PO), Maruthupathi, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
5/6
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI.J.,
DSK
WP(MD)No.10237 of 2021
14.11.2024
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging a punishment order without enquiry is maintainable.
Whether the principles of natural justice were observed in imposing the punishment.
Whether the impugned punishment order can be set aside due to lack of inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Pitchumani Vs The Management of Sri Chakra Tyres LtdReferred¶20
P.Pitchumani Vs The Management of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd, Madurai, reported in 2004 (3) CTC 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Suresh
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam), Karaikudi Region, Managri (PO), Maruthupathi, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District
B.PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
