WP No. 35027 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA WP No. 35027 of 2025 1. A.Chandran, S/o.Appadurai, Chinnamarathupatti Village, Thimmarayanahalli, Palacode T.K, Dharmapuri District. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Ltd), No 12, Ramakrsihna Salai, Salem District- 636 007 2.The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Ltd) (Dharmapuri Division), No 88/25, Bharathipuram, Dharmapuri District- 636 705 3.The Branch Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Ltd), (Krishnagiri Mousfal Road), Krishnagiri District. Respondent(s) 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35027 of 2025 PRAYER This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned Charge memo issued in 237/299/D9/Tha Na A Po Ka / 2025 dated 31.05.2025 by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to work in the 3rd respondent's branch office as Driver. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Raja, St.Counsel ORDER By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2.This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned Charge memo issued in 237/299/D9/Tha Na A Po Ka / 2025 dated 31.05.2025 by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to work in the 3rd respondent's branch office as Driver. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35027 of 2025 3.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4.The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Driver in the first respondent Corporation and that on 07.02.2025, while he was driving the bus from Thiruvannamalai to Bangalore in route no.300 A, a vehicle came from the left side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. However, no passengers sustained any injury in the incident. On 08.02.2025 itself, the petitioner reported the incident to the third respondent. However, all of a sudden, within two days i.e., on 10.02.2025, a suspension order was passed by the second respondent and the same was served on the petitioner on 13.02.2025. Thereafter, when the petitioner met the third respondent and explained the real facts, they gave him duty on 17.02.2025 by cancelling the suspension order. Thereafter, he was working in the same route upto 23.02.2025. While so, the petitioner was served with the transfer order passed by the second respondent dated 21.02.2025, transferring him to Krishnagiri Branch. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in WP. No.8308 of 2025 before this Court, challenging the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35027 of 2025 said transfer order of the second respondent. However, a learned Single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition vide order dated 25.06.2025. Against the said dismissal order dated 25.06.2025, the petitioner preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2572 of 2025 and the same is pending. While so, the second respondent has issued a charge memo dated 31.05.2025 to the petitioner. The petitioner had sent a detailed reply dated 30.07.2025 to the second respondent. However, the said reply dated 30.07.2025 has not been considered by the respondents. Therefore, he would seek to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 31.05.2025. 5.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the proceedings under challenge is only a show cause notice and the petitioner has also sent a reply dated 30.07.2025 and hence, the petitioner cannot challenge the show cause notice and further, the petitioner has not shown any ground seeking to set aside the show cause notice. 6.It is a well settled principle of law that a writ petition challenging a 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35027 of 2025 charge memo, being only in the form of a show cause notice, is ordinarily not maintainable, unless it is shown that the charge memo has been issued sans jurisdiction or is vitiated by mala fides or bias. It is not the case of the petitioner even that the impugned charge memo is issued sans jurisdiction or is vitiated by mala fides or bias. 7.Further, considering the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that only a show cause notice was issued by the respondents and no adverse order is passed, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-09-2025 dn Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35027 of 2025 To 1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Ltd), No 12 Ramakrsihna Salai, Salem District 636 007 2.The General Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Ltd) (Dharmapuri Division) , No .88/25, Bharathipuram. Dharmapuri District 636 705 3.The Branch Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem Ltd) (Krishnagiri Mousfal Road) Krishnagiri District 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35027 of 2025 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. dn WP No. 35027 of 2025 17-09-2025 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis