W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU W.P.(MD)No.1665 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.1699 of 2024 Palani ...Petitioner Vs 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam. 2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai 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 relevant records relating to the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in Appeal, vide. TNSTC/KKD/DS-1949/FAT01/D5-332/2021, dated 09.08.2023, with consequential appeal order dated 05.12.2023, in confirming the order 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 passed by second respondent in TNSTC/ KKD/ DS-1949/ FAT01/ D5-332/2021, dated 22.11.2022 and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to provide all monetary benefits with back wages including proper Annual Salary Reviews deducted by the Respondents by virtue same impugned orders in the petitioner's employment, within a stipulated period fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramaiah Standing Counsel O R D E R This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 09.08.2023 and the consequential appeal order dated 05.12.2023, which confirming the order passed by second respondent dated 22.11.2022 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to provide all monetary benefits with back wages including proper Annual Salary Reviews deducted by the respondents by virtue of the impugned orders, within a stipulated period fixed by this Court. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Driver engaged in the respondent Corporation and the bus driven by him has met with an accident. An FIR was also registered under Section 304 (A) of IPC and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.36 of 2022. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted from the case holding that the petitioner was not responsible for the accident. 3. He submits that however, in the interregnum, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and has was placed under suspension. He further submits that on the disciplinary proceedings initiated, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for a period of 36 months and the period of suspension was taken as leave. An appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. 4. He submits that having been acquitted in a criminal case arising out of the accident for which charge memo was issued, the petitioner ought to have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. The Enquiry Officer's report holding that the petitioner had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, goes contrary to the findings of the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 competent Criminal Court. There can be also no preponderance of possibility that the petitioner has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 5. He submits that the Criminal Court had specifically held that the negligence on the part of the petitioner had not been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of G.Ramachandran Vs. The Management, TNSTC (Vilupuram) Limited and others (W.P(MD)No.13628 of 2022) to support his contention. 6. Countering his arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner, who had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner. He further submits that this Court in W.P(MD)No.8851 of 2015, vide order dated 27.11.2020 held that the remedy for a similarly placed person challenging a order of punishment should have been before the Industrial Tribunal and not before the High Court. Therefore, he prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side. 8. A charge memo issued against the petitioner for his rash and negligent driving, for which the petitioner was also prosecuted before the competent Criminal Court. The Criminal Court has given a specific finding that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings could not come to a contrary conclusion than that have been arrived by a Criminal Court. 9. The respondents have also raised the grounds of maintainability of the writ petition, as there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner under the Industrial Dispute Act. It is the case of the respondents that without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner would not be entitled to canvass his case in this writ petition. Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been provided to protect the rights of the citizen. It may be true that the alternate remedy is a bar to entertain the 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such bar has been repeatedly held is not absolute. In a particular case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the present case, the charges have been framed on the similar facts and on the same set of allegations the petitioner had also been proceeded by Criminal Court. As already noted that when the Criminal Court after full trial found the petitioner was not negligent in causing the accident by a rash and negligent driving, the finding of the Enquiry Office that the petitioner was a rash and negligent, goes counter to the finding of the Criminal Court. When such a finding has been given, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with departmentally. No reasons have been attributed why the Enquiry Officer had gone contrary to the findings given by the competent Criminal Court. 11.The aforesaid view is also supported by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.M.Tank Vs State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 which has been recorded by 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 the learned Single Judge in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. 12.That being so, this Court is unable to comprehend as to why this Court should not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegate the petitioner to work out the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the objections raised by the respondents that the writ petition should not be entertained and petitioner should be relegated is not sustained. 13.In fine, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 and the consequential appeal order dated 05.12.2023, which confirming the order passed by second respondent dated 22.11.2022 are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.10.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Sn 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 To: 1.The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Kumbakonam Division, Kumbakonam. 2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 K.KUMARESH BABU , J. Sn W.P.(MD).No.1665 of 2024 08.10.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis