Allowed¶40

The General Manager v. P. Murugaprabhu

Madras HC23 Jun 2025WA(MD)/1615/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service law; termination of convicted driver; suspension of sentence not a stay of conviction; convicted employee automatically disqualified; reinstatement direction set aside; reinstatement subject to departmental proceedings if revision succeeds; W.A(MD) No.1615 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; G.R.Swaminathan and K.Rajasekar; Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation; Crl.R.C.(MD)No.937 of 2024; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the learned single Judge set aside; Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.8951 of 2024) dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶40

The General Manager Vs P. Murugaprabhu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order of the learned single Judge set aside; Writ Petition (W.P.(MD)No.8951 of 2024) dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned single Judge erred in directing reinstatement/grant of employment to the writ petitioner when, as on the date of the writ appeal, he remained a convicted employee whose sentence alone had been suspended. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Once an employee has suffered conviction, he is automatically disqualified.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner's sentence alone had been suspended; his conviction has not been stayed.

¶34

Key takeaways

The employee's rights would abide by the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings.ratio¶34
If the writ petitioner succeeds in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.937 of 2024, he would be entitled to reinstatement subject to the departmental proceedings.obiter¶34
As on date the petitioner's status is that of a convicted employee; the learned Judge erred in directing his reinstatement.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (under Clause 15 of Letters Patent) against the order dated 12.04.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.8951 of 2024, wherein the learned single Judge, reasoning that the writ petitioner's sentence had been suspended so he could not be disengaged, directed the appellant transport corporation Management to grant him employment. The petitioner, a driver, was prosecuted and sentenced to one year imprisonment after a fatal accident; the corporation terminated his services; his criminal appeal (Crl.A.No. 139 of 2023) was dismissed on 18.09.2024, and in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.937 of 2024 the revisional Court suspended the sentence (order dated 12.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No. 10333 of 2024). The Bench holds that suspension of sentence is not a stay of conviction; once an employee has suffered conviction he is automatically disqualified, his rights abiding by the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings; were he to succeed in the revision, he would be entitled to reinstatement subject to departmental proceedings. As on date the petitioner's status is that of a convicted employee, so the learned Judge erred in directing reinstatement. Writ Appeal allowed without costs; impugned order set aside; Writ Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.A(MD) No.1615 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD) No.1615 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9123 of 2025

¶7

1.The General Manager,

¶8

Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation,

¶9

Trichy By-Pass Road,

¶10

Dindigul District.

¶11

2.The Managing Director,

¶12

Head Branch, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Tirumangalam By-Pass Road, Madurai-625 010.

¶13

3.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Lower Camp Branch, Lower Camp, Theni District.

¶14

... Appellants / Respondents 2to 4

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.P.Murugaprabhu ... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶17

2.The Principal Secretary, Tamil Nadu Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. ... 2^nd Respondent / 1^st Respondent

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

W.A(MD) No.1615 of 2025

¶21

PRAYER:

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.8951 of 2024, dated 12.04.2024.

¶23

For Appellant : Mr.SC.Herold Singh

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.S.M.Ramasiva for R1

¶25

ORDER

¶26

( Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶27

Heard both sides.

¶28

The writ petitioner was appointed as driver in the appellant transport corporation. The bus driven by him met with a fatal accident. The writ petitioner was prosecuted. He was sentenced to one year imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed Crl.A.No. 139 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. Since the writ petitioner was convicted, the corporation rightly terminated his services. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.8951 of 2024. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.A(MD) No.1615 of 2025

¶32

and directed the appellant Management to grant employment to the writ petitioner. According to the learned single Judge, since the writ petitioner's sentence had been suspended, he cannot be disengaged. Challenging the said order of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶33

When the writ appeal was taken up for admission, the learned

¶34

counsel who appeared for the writ petitioner took notice. He fairly brought to our notice that the criminal appeal filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed on 18.09.2024. Challenging the same, he had filed Crl.R.C.(MD)No.937 of 2024 and that the revisional Court had suspended the sentence vide order dated 12.11.2024 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No. 10333 of 2024. It is a fact that the writ petitioner's sentence alone had been suspended. His conviction has not been stayed. Once an employee has suffered conviction, he is automatically disqualified. His rights would of-course abide by the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings. If the writ petitioner succeeds in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.937 of 2024, he would be entitled to reinstatement subject to the departmental proceedings. Since as on date, the petitioner's status is that of a

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

W.A(MD) No.1615 of 2025

¶38

convicted employee, the learned Judge erred in directing his reinstatement. The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is

¶39

set aside. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶40