Dismissed¶30

The General Manager v. S.Maheswaran (Staff No.16DR3509)

Madras HC8 Aug 2025WA(MD)/2088/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TNSTC (Kumbakonam) Karaikudi driver charge memo quashed upheld; Clause 61 of Section 12(3) I.D. Act settlement — honourable acquittal vs acquittal by benefit of doubt; name deleted from array of accused as not at fault; fatal accident 08.07.2023, Crime No.442 of 2023, Melur PS, Section 304(A) IPC; MACT Madurai M.C.O.P.No.1973 of 2023, more than Rs.18,00,000/- compensation, contributory negligence, 16-year-old minor victim rode the motor vehicle; writ appeal dismissed, no costs, 08.08.2025; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.1955 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; the single Judge's order quashing the charge memo stands. ¶30

The General Manager Vs S.Maheswaran (Staff… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; the single Judge's order quashing the charge memo stands.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should be allowed, i.e., whether the learned single Judge's order in W.P.(MD)No.23256 of 2023 quashing the charge memo ought to be set aside. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The learned single Judge rightly applied Clause 61 in favour of the writ petitioner; quashing of the charge memo is justified and interference with the said order is not warranted.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Clause 61 of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act is very much applicable: this is not a case of acquittal by benefit of doubt; the deletion of the writ petitioner's name from the array of accused on the ground that he was not at fault is equivalent to honourable acquittal.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench), Division Bench of G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar JJ. (judgment by G.R. Swaminathan, J.), W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025, decided 08.08.2025 — Writ appeal by the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Karaikudi Region, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order in W.P.(MD)No.23256 of 2023 (dt. 25.09.2023) quashing the charge memo dt. 21.08.2023 issued to its driver S. Maheswaran after a fatal accident of 08.07.2023 (Crime No.442 of 2023, Melur Police Station, Section 304(A) IPC). Though the FIR was registered, no final report was filed and the petitioner's name was deleted from the array of accused on the ground that he was not at fault (final report dt. 09.08.2023); the MACT, Madurai in M.C.O.P.No.1973 of 2023 awarded the victim's family more than Rs.18,00,000/- against the corporation, fixing contributory negligence as the victim was a 16-year-old minor who had ridden the motor vehicle. HOLDING: Clause 61 of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act — under which a disciplinary decision on a charge may be revised where the driver, held guilty in domestic enquiry, is subsequently honourably acquitted, but no revision is needed if the acquittal is merely by benefit of doubt — is applicable; the deletion from the accused array is equivalent to honourable acquittal, not acquittal by benefit of doubt; the learned single Judge rightly applied the clause and the quashing of the charge memo is justified; interference is not warranted. Writ appeal dismissed with no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.1955 of 2025 closed.

¶1

W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 08.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1955 of 2025

¶7

The General Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Karaikudi Region, Maruthupathi Managiri, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Appellant / Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Maheswaran ... Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 23256 of 2023, dated 25.09.2023 and allow the same.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.K.Ramaiah For Respondent : Mr.SP.Vijay Nivas

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

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

¶17

Heard both sides.

¶18

The respondent herein is employed as driver in the appellant transport corporation. The bus driven by him was involved in a fatal accident on 08.07.2023. In this regard, Crime No.442 of 2023 was registered by Melur Police Station for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Subsequently, the management issued charge memo dated 21.08.2023 against the respondent. Challenging the same, W.P.(MD)No. 23256 of 2023 was filed. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition and quashed the charge memo. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶19

The learned standing counsel for the corporation reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal. He pointed out that the victim's family filed M.C.O.P.No.1973 of 2023 on the file of the MACT, Madurai and obtained compensation to the tune of more than

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025

¶23

Rs.18,00,000/- against the appellant corporation. He therefore called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow the writ appeal as prayed for.

¶24

We are not impressed by the said submission. Our attention is drawn to Clause 61 of the settlement under Section 12(3) of I.D. Act entered into between the management and the employees. The said clause reads as follows:-

¶25

“61. Where a driver involved in an accident and held guilty of charge in domestic enquiry, subsequently, honourably acquitted in the criminal case, the decision in the disciplinary case on the same charge may be revised based on the orders of the Court. However, if the acquittal is by benefit of doubt, no such revision is necessary.”

¶26

In the case on hand, even though FIR was registered against the writ petitioner, no final report was filed. On the ground that the writ petitioner was not at fault, the writ petitioner's name was deleted from the array of the accused. Copy of the final report dated 09.08.2023 has already been made available. We also went through the Judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted that the victim was a 16 years old

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025

¶30

minor, who had ridden the motor vehicle. That is why, contributory negligence was fixed. This is not a case of acquittal by benefit of doubt. On the other hand, it is equivalent to honourable acquittal. Therefore, the aforesaid clause is very much applicable. The learned single Judge rightly applied the same in favour of the writ petitioner. Quashing of the charge memo is justified. Interference with the said order is not warranted. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

(G.R.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 08.08.2025

¶32

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi

¶33

4/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.A(MD) No.2088 of 2025

¶36

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J.