← Library
Madras High CourtWP/13209/2026allowed

R.Palanikumar v. The Secretary To Government Of Tamilnadu

2026-04-27Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND WMP NO. 14478 OF 2026 R.Palanikumar Employee No.A02678 Assistant Manager (Dismissed from service) Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai)Limited No.2, Pallavan Illam Pallavan Salai Chennai-600 002 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Transport Department Fort St.George, Chennai

2. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd Rep by its Managing Director No.2, Pallavan Illam Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002

3. Senior Deputy Manager Metropolitan Transport corporation (Chennai)Ltd No.2, Pallavan Illam Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002 ..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certitorarifed mandamus calling for the records in order No.6207/SP(ON)/5/MTC/2024 dated 24.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to settle all his terminal benefits with interest from 30.11.2024.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.C.Vigneswaran For Respondent(s):

Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader-R1 Ms.Karpagalakshmi Standing Counsel - R2 and R3 Order This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "To issue a writ of certitorarifed mandamus calling for the records in order No.6207/SP(ON)/5/MTC/2024 dated 24.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to settle all his terminal benefits with interest from the 30.11.2024."

2. The petitioner had joined the services of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited as a Company Trainee on 08.09.1987 and was promoted up to the post of Assistant Manager. While so, a charge memo dated 10.05.2024 was issued alleging involvement in irregularities relating to the appointment of conductors for the year 20142015. The petitioner contends that he had no role in the selection process, as he was holding a lower post at the relevant time. It is further stated that though two FIRs were registered in connection with the said issue, the petitioner was not named therein. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 15.07.2024 requesting the respondents to furnish the documents to enable him to submit his reply to the charge memo.

3. Meanwhile, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26539 of 2024 before this Court challenging the Charge Memo and this Court, by order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No.26539 of 2024, directed the respondents to furnish the requested documents and complete the disciplinary proceedings before the petitioner's superannuation. Despite repeated requests, including under the RTI Act, the required documents were not furnished to him. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension prior to his retirement. Subsequently, the

disciplinary proceedings were concluded and a punishment order dated 24.11.2025 was passed, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. The very genesis for the issue is the F.I.R which is one of the documents that has not been furnished to the petitioner despite his request. Further, nine other documents sought for by the petitioner have also not been provided. The Enquiry Officer has recorded this fact in his proceedings dated 01.08.2025 and also noted the request of the petitioner indicating the documents and directing the respondents to respond to the same. In the counter filed by the respondents, they have impliedly admitted the fact that the documents had not been supplied to the petitioner, which is evident from a reading of paragraph Nos.11 to 13.

6. It is now stated by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents that these documents have been submitted before the criminal Court and are voluminous in nature. If that be so, this Court is at a loss to

understand the basis on which the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges are proved against the petitioner, followed by the impugned order.

7. Therefore, in the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent, who shall supply all the required documents to the petitioner and thereafter either nominate a fresh Enquiry Officer or continue with the earlier Enquiry Officer, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRN

To

1. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Transport Department Fort St.George, Chennai.

2. The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai)Ltd No.2, Pallavan Illam Pallavan Salai Chennai-600 002

3. The Senior Deputy Manager Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai)Ltd No.2, Pallavan illam Pallavan salai, Chennai-600 002

P.T.ASHA J.

SRN AND WMP NO. 14478 OF 2026 27-04-2026