A.Sudalaimani v. The Managing Director

W.P.(MD) No.3392 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.02.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No.3392 of 2020 A.Sudalaimani ... Petitioner /vs./ 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-627 003.

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-627 003.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records pertaining to File No.9389/Sa8/ThaAPooKa/Thili2007 and quash the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the first respondent/appellate authority as ultravires by allowing the petitioner's appeal and consequently directing the respondents to pay the petitioner's increment for 2 years with all other attended monitory benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subbiah For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajamohan Standing Counsel

ORDER

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2.As against the original order passed by the second respondent herein dated 23.12.2008, the petitioner herein had filed an appeal before the first respondent herein on 22.01.2019. The reason assigned by the petitioner for belatedly filing the appeal is that the criminal Court had acquitted the petitioner in its judgment dated 07.08.2018 passed in C.CNo.192 of 2008. In the appeal petition dated 22.01.2019, the petitioner had raised several grounds challenging the punishment imposed by the second respondent. However, in the impugned order dated 30.11.2019, the second respondent had passed non-speaking order to the effect that the petitioner's appeal was carefully perused and there was no scope for interference.

3.No reason has been assigned by the first respondent while considering the petitioner's appeal, particularly, when the petitioner has raised several grounds challenging the reasons adduced by the second respondent while imposing the punishment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD) No.3392 of 2020 4.While that being so, the punishment itself can be termed as non-speaking order. In this background, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to reconsider the petitioner's appeal petition dated 22.01.2019.

5.In the light of the above observations, the impugned order in File No.9389/Sa8/ThaAPooKa/Thili2007, dated 30.11.2019, passed by the first respondent herein is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is also at liberty to raise additional ground in the appeal against the order passed by the second respondent dated 23.12.2008. On receipt of the such additional ground, if any, the first respondent herein shall consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate speaking order, in accordance with law, after extending due opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that since the first respondent herein had not cited the delay in preferring the appeal as a reason for rejecting the appeal in the first instance on 30.11.2019, the present consideration of the appeal after remand, shall not quote the limitation as a ground for rejecting the petitioner's appeal.

6.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) cp To:

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-627 003.

2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-627 003.

+1 CC to Mr.R.RAJAMOHAN, Advocate ( SR-7428[F] dated 20/02/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.P.SUBBIAH, Advocate ( SR-7337[F] dated 20/02/2020 ) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.3392 of 2020 20.02.2020 MK (10.03.2020) 3P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2