Disposed

Arunkumar.a (Staff No.12DR3610) v. The General Manager

Madras HC2 Apr 2024WP(MD)/8338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner driver challenged charge memo for negligence causing accident. Court noted pending criminal case was against deceased, not petitioner. Directed respondent to consider explanation and pending criminal case within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider petitioner's explanation and pending criminal case and pass orders within four weeks. No costs.

Arunkumar.a (Staff No.12DR3610) Vs The General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD) No.8338of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8338 of 2024

¶7

A.Arunkumar .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Ltd., Karaikudi Region, Maruthupathi, Mangiri, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. .. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

¶11

issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo in TNSTC/KKD/DS-7065/FAT01/D2-591/2023 dated 09.02.2024, issued by the respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Vijaynivas For Respondent : Mr.K.Jagadees Balan Standing Counsel

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

WP(MD) No.8338of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who was serving as a driver in the respondent Transport Corporation has challenged the charge memo dated 09.02.2024 issued by the respondent.

¶18

Heard Mr.P.Vijaynivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.Jagadees Balan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶19

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

¶20

The petitioner has been given with a charge memo on the allegation that due to the negligence, he caused the accident which resulted in casualty. Mr.P.Vijaynivas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even a criminal case has been registered against the deceased person for having found out the prima facie materials of negligence as against him and not against the petitioner. It is further claimed that the charge memo can be issued only after the petitioner

¶21

2/6

¶22

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

¶23

WP(MD) No.8338of 2024

¶24

was found guilty in the criminal case and hence, the charge memo is not legal.

¶25

Mr.K.Jagadees Balan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner has no relevance to the pending criminal case.

¶26

It would have been better if the respondent could conduct proper enquiry before serving the charge memo to the petitioner. However, the petitioner can also submit his explanation to the charge memo and allow the respondent to pass appropriate orders. It is learnt that the petitioner has given explanation dated 15.03.2024.

¶27

Therefore, it is upto the respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders by taking into account of the pending criminal case which was registered against the deceased and not against the petitioner and also taking into account the other facts and circumstances, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD) No.8338of 2024

¶31

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶32

02.04.2024

¶33

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No PJL

¶34

To The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kum) Ltd., Karaikudi Region, Maruthupathi, Mangiri, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶35

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

¶36

4/6

¶37

WP(MD) No.8338of 2024

¶38

5/6

¶39

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

¶40

WP(MD) No.8338of 2024

¶41

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶42

PJL

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.8338 of 2024

¶44

02.04.2024

¶45

6/6

¶46

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

Arunkumar.a (Staff No.12DR3610) v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunkumar.a (Staff No.12DR3610) v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Angala Eswari@ Anitha Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

Balamurugan .J Vs The District Collector

Amala Jessi Jacquilin .J Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Rajendran Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

Balaji .N.a Vs The Commissioner

Soundara Pandian R Vs The Deputy Inspector of General