The legal principle established emphasizes the requirement of adequate evidence in disciplinary proceedings and the relevance of acquittal in criminal cases amounting to a benefit of doubt.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.5661 of 2019 and WMP.No.6447 of 2019 The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Chennai – 600 002. ...Petitioner Vs.

V.Ravi ...Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.254/2012 by the 1^st Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Neelakandan, AAG Assisted by M.Keerthika

O R D E R

At the outset this Court expresses the depression in the manner in which the Tourism and Development has conducted this writ petition.

2. The Corporation has allowed the writ petition to be dismissed for default on two occasions, one on 08.10.2021 and another on 07.12.2023. Though the department has dedicated Advocates to represent it, the Corporation has allowed the writ petition to be dismissed for default not on one occasion but twice.

3. The Corporation seeks to challenge the order passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.254 of 2012, whereby, the respondent herein was reinstated with continuity of service and the Corporation was directed to pay 50% back wages along with other attendant benefits from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

4. Short facts are that the respondent was employed as Driver in Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation. On 14.02.2007, while the respondent was driving a luxury coach from Chennai to Salem, the vehicle met with an accident and it dashed against an on coming lorry. Due to the impact, two tourists were seriously injured. The corporation issued a charge memo to the respondent on 15.05.2007 framing four charges on 22.04.2008. The enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges 1, 2 and 4 stood grouped and charge No.3 that the respondent was in a drunken stated on the fateful day was not proved. Based on the said report, the petitioner Corporation dismissed the respondent vide order dated 11.02.2010. The respondent raised the industrial dispute which was referred to the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai and taken on file as I.D.No.254 of 2012. The management let in oral evidence and marked 9 documents. The respondent neither chose to examine any witness not marked any documents. The Labour Court on an analysis of materials placed before it came to a conclusion that the petitioner Corporation has not proved the charges framed against he respondent and ultimately directed reinstatement with continuity of services and 50% of back wages. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Two tourists were seriously injured. The learned counsel also submitted that the Corporation suffered a loss of Rs.1,25,603/- because of the accident. Learned counsel further stated that the respondent had brought disrepute to the tourist Corporation. Learned counsel submitted that though the respondent has admitted before the Criminal Court that would not have a bearing on the departmental proceedings. The methodology of proof before the Criminal Court is different from departmental proceedings. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal needs interference and the same may be set aside.

6. Though the notice was served on the respondent, no one appeared on his behalf. Considering the period of pendency of the above writ petition the same is disposed of based on the materials available on record.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the