Sethuramachandran.A v. The Managing Director

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD) No.5446 of 2021 A.Sethuramachandran ... Petitioner -vs1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Karaikudi, Sivagangai District 2.The Deputy General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi Sivagangai District 3.The Branch Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Madurai Branch, Ulaganeri Madurai

4.The Branch Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Sivagangai Branch Sivagangai, Sivagangai District 5.Enquiry Officer Disciplinary Proceeding Section Karaikudi Region Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited Karaikudi, Sivagangai District ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in TNSTC/TS/T5/15/18 dated 03.04.2019 and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Senthil Kumar For Respondents :

No appearance

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.04.2019, passed by the second respondent, imposing a punishment of one stage reduction from the petitioner's basic salary on account of the

petitioner's absence from duty without permission for the period from 08.05.2018 to 25.05.2018.

2. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings and only based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent, under the impugned order, has imposed the punishment on the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, in the enquiry report, has held that the charges framed against the petitioner with regard to the absence of the petitioner from duty between 08.05.2018 and 25.05.2018 has been proved.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file the statutory appeal, if aggrieved by the impugned order. The impugned order was passed on 03.04.2019. However, this writ petition has been filed only in the year 2021 challenging the impugned order. The petitioner also retired from service with effect from 31.05.2019 and his eligible retirement benefits were also settled by the respondents. Having not exercised the statutory appellate remedy, if aggrieved by the impugned order and having chosen to file this writ petition only in the year 2021 through the impugned order was passed on 03.04.2019 imposing a punishment as stated supra on the petitioner, the question of

entertaining this writ petition does not arise that too when the petitioner has admittedly retired from service on 31.05.2019 and has also received the eligible retirement benefits.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.09.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

krk and W.M.P.(MD) No.5446 of 2021 02.09.2025