Dismissed¶37

A.Saravanan v. the General Manager,(Admin)

Madras HC9 Jan 2025WP/5393/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction; punishment of reduction of pay; disciplinary proceedings against bus driver; rash and negligent driving; death of two passengers; failure to avail statutory appeal; unexplained delay of seven years; repeated road accidents; MTC Ltd.; refusal to quash punishment order; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, there being no explanation offered for the delay of almost seven years in approaching the Court and for the failure to avail the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authorities under the relevant Service Rules. ¶30

A.Saravanan Vs the General Manager,(Admin) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.06.2007 imposing punishment of reduction of pay on the petitioner is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Taking note of the petitioner's conduct in repeatedly committing accidents causing damage to the Corporation's property and injuries to passengers and third parties, this Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Single Judge, MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.), 09.01.2025 — Writ petition under Article 226 sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash MTC proceedings dated 23.06.2007 (Se.mu.aa.No.29060/Sa.pp(o na)9/m.t.c/05) imposing punishment of reduction of pay, and re-fixation of basic pay at Rs.5,565/- instead of Rs.4,440/- from 23.06.2007, following a disciplinary enquiry in which a charge of rash and negligent driving causing the death of two bus passengers was held established. The petition was filed in February 2014, almost seven years after the punishment order, without any appeal and without any explanation for the delay. Counsel for the respondent placed on record details of punishments imposed on the petitioner from 1998 to 2018, including minor accidents on 06.04.2005, 08.06.2005 and 12.06.2014. Held: the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, the petitioner having failed to avail the appellate remedy under the relevant Service Rules; and, considering the petitioner's repeated accidents causing damage and injury, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.No.5393 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.5393 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

A.Saravanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager (Adminstration), MTC Ltd., 12, Anna Salai, Channai-2

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing to call for the records relating to the respondent herein in Se.mu.aa.No.29060/Sa.pp(o na)9/m.t.c/05, dated 23.06.2007 and quash the same, further direct the respondent to re-fix the petitioner's basic pay as Rs.5,565/- from 23.06.2007 instead of Rs.4,440/- as basic wages and pay all arrears and benefits and pass such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.5393 of 2014

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Gouthamaraj

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Se.mu.aa.No.29060/Sa.pp(o na) 9/m.t.c/05, dated 23.06.2007 whereby a punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner was imposed as a result of disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded against the petitioner. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the following charge:

¶19

jpUbthw;wpa{h; gzpkidiar; rhh;e;j jpU/rutzd;. Xl;Ldh;. gzp vz; 51044 mth;fs; fle;j 31/1/05 md;W jlk; vz;/1 vy;v!;v!; $p rh;tP!;. ngUe;J vz; otp$p 161?y; KGneug; gzpapy; ngUe;J jpUbthw;wpa{hpy; ,Ue;J g[wg;gl;L jpUthd;kpa{h; nehf;fp ,uhag;ngl;il beL";rhiy tHpahf m$e;jh nkk;ghyj;jpy; ,w';Fk; nghJ ngUe;J Xl;Ldh; ftdf;Fiwthft[k; m$hf;fpuijahft[k; ,af;fp epiy

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.5393 of 2014

¶23

bghUshd nkk;ghyk; jLg;g[ fk;gp kw;Wk; Rthpy; cuha;e;jjpy; bjhlh;tpidahf gpd; gof;fl;oy; bjh';fp gazk; bra;j ,U Mz; gazpfs; fhakile;J gpd;dh; caphpHe;j ,t;tpgj;Jf;F ngUe;J Xl;Ldh; bghWg;ghthh;/ ,J rh/ep/M/vz;/25(XIII) (V) d; go xG';fPdkhFk;/

¶24

A perusal of the charge on the face of it reveals that the charge is grave in nature. Two passengers travelling in the bus driven by the petitioner lost their life. The factum of two passengers lost their lives is not in dispute. The respondent/Corporation, after having conducted an enquiry into the matter, in which, the charge levelled against the petitioner was established, appears to have taken a lenient view and imposed the punishment of reduction in pay as early as in the year 2007.

¶25

3.The petitioner did not take any steps to neither file an appeal against the said impugned order imposing the punishment on him nor he challenged the same almost for a period of seven years. It was only in the month of February 2014, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 23.06.2007. Absolutely, there is no

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.5393 of 2014

¶29

explanation offered for the delay in approaching this Court or for failure

¶30

of the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authorities provided under the relevant Service Rules. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

¶31

4.However, this Court, while taking note of the above aspects, required the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent to inform this Court about the conduct of the petitioner prior to the date of impugned order as well as subsequent to the impugned order. Accordingly, Mr.C.Gouthamaraj. learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed before this Court the details of various punishments imposed on the petitioner during the service from the year 1998 to 2018. A perusal of the same also discloses that the petitioner has caused accidents while driving the bus on several occasions, including after the passing of the impugned order whereby, he met with the minor accident on 06.04.2005, 08.06.2005,12.06.2014 etc.

¶32

5.Considering the conduct of the petitioner in committing

¶33

Page 4 of 7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.5393 of 2014

¶36

accidents repeatedly and causing damage to the property of the respondent/Corporation and injuries to the passengers and third parties, this Court is thoroughly convinced that this is not a matter where it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

6.In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on the ground of delay and laches, as the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

09.01.2025

¶39

vsn

¶40

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶41

Page 5 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.5393 of 2014