Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed regulations; imposing unauthorized punishments is unlawful.

ORDER :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the order passed by the 1st Respondent in TNSTC/TS/T3/16/19, dated 20.11.2020, confirming the order passed by the 2nd Respondent, dated 15.06.2020 in TNSTC/TST3/16/19 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, directing the Respondents to restore the Petitioner's salary prior to the impugned order, passed by the 2nd Respondent, dated 15.06.2020, with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Writ Petition and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-

a) The Petitioner was appointed as a Bus Conductor in the Respondent Corporation on 01.01.1992 and his service was regularized in the year 1994. The Respondent Corporation issued a charge memo, dated 06.07.2019, against the Petitioner, stating that on 05.07.2019, when he was discharging his duty as a Bus Conductor, at the Route Muthukulathur-Veeracholan in the Bus, bearing Reg.No.TN-63- N-1503, he, after receiving Rs.20/- from a passenger, who travelled from Muthukulathur to Vallakulam, issued a ticket for Rs.10/- only to the said passenger and repaid Rs.2/- to her, as balance, thereby causing a monetory loss of Rs.8/- to the Respondent Corporation and directing the Petitioner to offer his explanation within a period of seven days. However, immediately, on the same day, by proceedings in TNSTC/TS/T3/16/19, dated 06.07.2019, the Petitioner was suspended, without giving sufficient opportunity or any notice to the Petitioner.

b) After suspension, the Petitioner was, once again, sent for training and thereafter, on 05.08.2019, the Petitioner was reinstated in service. During the suspension period, he was not paid any salary or subsistence allowance. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred on 13.08.2019 from Muthukulathur Branch to Kamuthi Branch, by proceedings in Tha.Aa.Po.Ka./Pa.Pi./170/19 of the 2nd Respondent and subsequently, he was again retransferred to the Muthukulathur Branch.

c) While so, an inquiry was conducted, without giving any sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner and based on the inquiry report dated 04.12.2019, the 2nd Respondent issued a notice, dated 11.3.2020, proposing to impose a punishment of pay reduction to mnimum level with cumulative effect and calling upon the Petitioner to give a reply, within 7 days during the COVID-19 period. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 15.06.2020 was passed, by the 2nd Respondent, imposing the punishment of pay reduction to minimum with cumulative effect and ordering the suspension period from 07.07.2019 to 05.08.2019 to be treated as eligible leave to his credit.

d) Both the above said notice and the impugned order, dated 15.06.2020 were served belatedly on 12.09.2020, obtaining his signature as if he received on 22.03.2020 and 24.06.2020. The Petitioner was not served with the enquiry report and other materials of the proceedings. On 14.09.2020, the Petitioner made an appeal before the 1st Respondent against the order dated, 15.6.2020 of the 2nd Respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the 1st Respondent, by his order, dated 20.11.2020, TNSTC/TS/T3/16/19, confirming the order of the 2nd Respondent, without giving any reasonable opportunity. In such circumstances, this Writ Petition has been filed, seeking the relief, as stated above.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd Respondent, it is stated as under:-

a) While the Petitioner was discharing his duty as a Bus Conductor, in the Bus No.TN-63-N-1503 on 05.07.2019 on the Route, Mudukulathur-Veeracholan, on checking, it was found by the Ticket Checking Inspectors that a women passenger travelling from Mudukulathur-Vallakulam had paid Rs.18/- as ticket fair, but the ticket was issued for Rs.10/- only, instead of Rs.18/ and thus, the Petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.8/-, causing monetary loss to the Respondent Cor