W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 and WMP (MD) No.24205 of 2023 The Management Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli – 627 003. ... Petitioner(s) vs. General Secretary, Nellai, Chidambaranar, Kanyakumari District, State Transport Employees Union, Registration No. 468/tvl, 4c, Imperial Compound Upstair, Berachiamman Kovil Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 3. For E.Mariappan ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 the award of the Labour court, Tirunelveli in I.D.No. 23 of 2014 dated 12.07.2022 and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Jebaraj For Respondent : Mr.K.Guhan O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Tirunelveli. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the respondent workman, Mariappan, was employed as a Driver in the petitioner Corporation and was attached to the Tirunelveli Depot. On 07.02.2003, while he was driving the Corporation bus bearing Registration No. TN-27-N-0853 on the Route No.510, from Madurai to Tiruchendur, the bus met with an accident near Kodangipatti when a large number of devotees proceeding to Tiruchendur were walking on the road. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent workman, resulting in injuries to several passengers, one of whom subsequently succumbed 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 to the injuries on 14.02.2003. Pursuant thereto, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo and after conducting a domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by order dated 16.06.2003. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the respondent Union raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.23 of 2014 after a delay of nearly eleven years and the Labour Court interfered with the punishment. The learned counsel further submitted that the Labour Court erred in setting aside the punishment mainly on the ground that the petitioner Corporation had taken a different stand before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding negligence and that the criminal case ended in acquittal. It was contended that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is entirely different from that applicable in departmental proceedings, where the charges need only be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The punishment imposed was only a minor penalty of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, considering the gravity of the misconduct involving a fatal accident. The Labour Court was therefore not justified in interfering with such a minor punishment. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed that the award of the Labour Court be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union submitted that the petitioner Corporation had taken inconsistent stands before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the disciplinary authority regarding the cause of the accident. The Labour Court, after considering the entire materials on record, rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the punishment. The impugned award does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 5. The precedents on the issue of interference with the punishment imposed has been oft considered by the Courts and it has been the consistent view of the Courts that it is always within the domain of the disciplinary authority to decide on the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent, which should be proportionate to the act of the delinquent. Only when the punishment is 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 disproportionate and shocking to the conscience, should the courts interfere in the same in exercise of powers under Article 226. In Prem Nath Bali v. High Court of Delhi reported in 2015 (16) SCC 415, the Supreme Court held as under :- “20. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved, it is for the appointing authority to decide the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee in accordance with the Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the entire service record of the delinquent employee, and all other relevant factors, exercises its discretion and imposes such punishment as is provided under the Rules. 21. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority in imposing the punishment (whether minor or major), the Courts are slow to interfere with the quantum of punishment and substitute it only in rare and appropriate cases. Such power is exercised only when the Court finds that the delinquent employee has established that the punishment inflicted is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the gravity of the 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 proved charges, thereby shocking the conscience of the Court, or that it is in contravention of the Rules. In such cases, the Court may remit the matter to the appointing authority for imposing any other punishment in accordance with the Rules instead of the punishment originally awarded, or, in an appropriate case, substitute the punishment itself instead of remitting the matter to the appointing authority.” (Emphasis Supplied) From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court above, it is crystal clear that the power to interfere with the punishment should be exercised only if the delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges and, thereby, shocking the conscience of the Court or if it is in contravention of the Rules. 6. The accident in question occurred while the respondent workman was discharging his duties as a Driver of the petitioner Corporation. Thus, the occurrence of the accident and the loss of one human life are not in dispute. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated immediately after the occurrence by 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 issuing a charge memo and a domestic enquiry was conducted after affording adequate opportunity to the workman. It is well settled that the standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in disciplinary proceedings the charges are required to be established only on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 7. In the present case, the disciplinary authority, after conducting a fair domestic enquiry and considering the entire facts and circumstances, imposed only the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The Labour Court interfered with the said punishment without assigning any justifiable reason. Such interference with a minor punishment is unwarranted and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority is fair, reasonable and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and warrants no interference. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court dated 12.07.2022 is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. Consequently, the punishment imposed by the petitioner Corporation is restored. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 8.The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN To General Secretary, Nellai, Chidambaranar, Kanyakumari District, State Transport Employees Union, Registration No. 468/tvl, 4c, Imperial Compound Upstair, Berachiamman Kovil Street, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli – 3. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 M.DHANDAPANI ,J. PKN ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.28112 of 2023 DATED : 28.07.2026 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis