A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the performance of a public duty and to prevent injustice, even if there is another adequate remedy available.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, an employee of the respondent State Transport Corporation Unit-I, Kumbakonam prays for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including the continuity of service.

2. This court initially ordered Notice of motion on 2. 1999 and subsequently ordered issue of Rule Nisi on 7. 99. The sole respondent entered appearance and also filed counter. The writ petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petitioner itself is taken up for final disposal, when the application filed by the writ petitioner for directions came up for consideration.

3. Heard Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.V. Ayyadurai for the petitioner and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T. Arulraj.

4. In this case, the court has to consider the factual matrix in detail as well as certain earlier proceedings and therefore this Court has to set out the facts in detail.

I. PETITIONER’S CASE:

5. The petitioner, a Junior Superintendent in the Accounts Section in the respondent Corporation was attending the work relating to repayment of loan to the Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation and Provident Fund. However, he was directed to look after additional work of cash collection, whenever there was shortage of employees in that section. The petitioner was put in-charge of cash collection for about five working days during April/May, 1983 and there was no shortage nor there was any omission on his part in the said work.

.6. Subsequently, it was found by the respondent management that one Rajagopalan, who is regularly in-charge of cash collection has defalcated cash accounts and misappropriated substantial funds. As the petitioner was in charge of cash collection for few days a charge memo was issued. The charge framed against the petitioner being that the petitioner had failed to find out and report the alleged fraud, misappropriation and malpractice committed by the said Rajagopalan. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 211. 1983 and charge memo was issued on 30.11.1983 for having neglected and failed to report about the defalcation of the said Rajagopalan. With respect to the said charge an enquiry was conducted and a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed in terms of the standing orders. However, as an Industrial dispute was pending during the relevant period, before the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent filed I.D.No.622 of 82 and sought for approval from the said Tribunal under Section 33 (2)(b)1 of the Industrial Disputes Act for the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service.

7. After detailed enquiry, the said Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 17. 1984 refused to grant approval holding that no malpractice or misconduct been established against the petitioner and that there is no legal evidence to sustain the solitary charge and to conclude that the petitioner is guilty of the imputations. Instead of reinstating the petitioner, the respondent challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal by filing W.P.No.8849 of 1984. Simultaneously the writ petitioner herein had also filed W.P.No.3318 of 1984 challenging the order of dismissal and for consequential relief of reinstatement. After contest, the writ petition filed by the employer was dismissed on 112. 1987 and the order of the Industrial Tribunal was confirmed by this Court.

8. This Court dismissed both the writ petitions. But in W.P.No.3318 of 1984 filed by the petitioner herein seeking to quash the order of dismissal dated 3. 1984 and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner, this Court held that there is no need to quash the impugned order once over as the writ petition filed by the respondent management stands dismissed and that of the Industrial Tribunal stands confirmed. In that view this court held tha