Madras High CourtWP(MD)/18421/2022disposed of

Mohan.P v. The Managing Director

2025-09-09Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P(MD).No.18421 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.13424 and 13426 of 2022 P.Mohan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Kumbakonam 612 001.

Thanjavur District

2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Trichy Region, Periyamilaguparai, Trichirappalli District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent herein in f/m/nghf-Fk;g-jpUr;rp-o5-6004-2020. dated 11.01.2021 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to sanction the amount 1/5

deducted from the salary of the petitioner due to one year increment cut with cumulative effect pursuant to impugned order dated 11.01.2021 within the time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For Respondents : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the second respondent imposing punishment of one year increment cut with cumulative effect on the petitioner. 2.The petitioner has raised various grounds for challenging the impugned order. He pleads innocence of the charges levelled against him. 3.The petitioner is a Driver employed with the respondent Transport Corporation. The charge levelled against him in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents is that while operating the bus, due to his rash and 2/5

negligent driving he had caused damage to the bus, which resulted in loss suffered by the respondent Transport Corporation. The petitioner denies the said accusation. However based on the enquiry report, the second respondent has passed the impugned order imposing the aforesaid punishment on the petitioner.

3.Admittedly, there is an appeal remedy available to the petitioner, if aggrieved by the impugned order. The petitioner without exercising the same, has approached this Court filing this writ petition. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner is willing to prefer an appeal as against the impugned order, dated 11.01.2021 before the competent authority of the respondent Transport Corporation, if this Court grants liberty. No prejudice would be caused to any other parties, if such a liberty is granted. 5.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent authority of the respondent Transport Corporation as against the impugned order, dated 11.01.2021 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On 3/5

receipt of the said appeal, the appellate authority of the respondent Transport Corporation shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law by adhering to the principles of the natural justice, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

6.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

09.09.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No NCC:Yes/No LR 4/5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE , J.

LR W.P(MD).No.18421 of 2022 09.09.2025 5/5