O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 27.08.2018 and for consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his duty as Conductor.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the respondent Corporation in the year 2005 as Conductor and he has been working since then. On 22.08.2018, he was on duty as conductor in a bus which was plying between Trichy to Chennai. This bus reached Tindivanam Bus Stand on 23.08.2018 at about 03.30 A.M. The petitioner found that an unused ticket bag which was kept under his seat was stolen. The petitioner tried his best to trace out the bag and he was not able to trace it. The petitioner gave a complaint to the Police on 24.08.2018, about the theft of the unused ticket bags and the complaint was taken on file in CSR No.362 of 2018 and the Police issued a non traceable certificate on 20.09.2018.

3. In view of this incident, the first respondent by his proceedings dated 27.08.2018 passed an order to the effect that the unused tickets were lost only due to the negligence of the petitioner and it is valued to the tune of Rs.2,27,990/-. This amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner. This order passed by the first respondent has been made a subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

4. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty as Conductor and therefore, a further relief has been claimed before this Court for direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his duty as Conductor.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the unused tickets were stolen from the bus and it was not lost due to the negligence of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of this Court wherein this Court after referring to various settlements arrived between the Union and the respondent Corporation, has held that such recovery cannot be made only on the ground that the unused tickets were lost and could not be traced. Learned counsel specifically relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 224 [ Management of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Ltd. (now known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.) Dindigul represented by its Managing Director Vs. M.Palanisamy].

6. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgments of learned Single Judges who had passed similar orders by following the judgment of the Division Bench. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be interfered with since it was passed even without conducting an enquiry. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Corporation must be directed to permit the petitioner to continue his duty as a Conductor in the Corporation.

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, it is clear from the complaint given by the petitioner to the Police as well as the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that, it was only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the unused tickets were lost. Learned counsel submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case since the loss of unused tickets was caused purely due to the negligence of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that even as per the settlement that is relied upon by the petitioner, the loss must have occurred due to accident, theft or robbery and in the present case, the loss did not happen due to any of these causes and it had happened only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner.

8. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had unauthorisedly absented himself for the period from 20.11.2018 to 2