Disciplinary proceedings can validly occur against an employee despite the management's prior defense in a tribunal that exonerated the employee.

JUDGMENT :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The appellant joined the respondent corporation as driver. On 05.05.2017, the bus driven by him met with a fatal accident. As many as 7 passengers travelling in the bus died and 14 others suffered grievous injuries. The bus also sustained damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).

2. The appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.05.2017. Charge memo dated 19.05.2017 was also issued. The appellant submitted his explanation on 30.05.2017. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was adverse to the appellant. The charge of negligent driving framed against the appellant was held to have been proved. After issuing second show cause notice dated 20.11.2017, and obtaining further representation from the appellant, the appellant was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect. The appellant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards recouping the cost of damage caused to the vehicle driven by him. Challenging the said punishment order dated 19.07.2018, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No. 15106 of 2019. This Court relegated the appellant herein to avail the appeal remedy. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.03.2020. Challenging the said orders, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.10835 of 2020. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 03.09.2020. Assailing the same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that following the accident, proceedings were initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Madurai. The respondent corporation filed counter in the said proceedings taking the stand that the entire occurrence took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the other vehicle (lorry) and not on the part of the appellant herein. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, having taken such a stand before the Tribunal in MACT proceedings, the management cannot be allowed to resile from the said stand. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik,  2025 INSC 218.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the corporation submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is well reasoned and that it does not call for interference.

5. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6. It is true that the management had taken a plea before the Tribunal in the claim proceedings that its driver was not at fault. The Division Bench of this Court in (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division-II) Limited & another Vs. P. Karuppusamy, W.A. No. 2399 of 2003) dated 23.11.2007 had held that once the management has taken such a stand before the Tribunal in the claim proceedings, it cannot take a U-turn and initiate disciplinary action against its driver. But this decision was specifically overruled by a Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024 in (V. Syril Sundararaj Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thirunelveli & Others, W.P. No. 39563 of 2004). The question of law referred to the Full Bench was formulated in the following terms:

“Whether the Management is precluded from initiating disciplinary proceedings against its driver