IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.01.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

W.P. No. 34325 of 2018

and

W.M.P. Nos. 12020, 39905 and 39906 of 2020

G.Jayamoorthy

... Petitioner

Vs

1.The General Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation

(Villupuram Ltd),

Villupuram – 605 602.

2.The Branch Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation (Villupuram Ltd)

Koyambedu Branch,

Chennai.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,

calling for the records relating to the Order in Ka.No.23/Va Tha

P-5/V.Ma/TNSTC (V)/2018 dated 27.08.2018, passed by the first

respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first

respondent to provide duty to the petitioner as Conductor.

For Petitioner

: Mrs.S.Vijaya

For Respondents

: Mrs.Rejeni Ramadoss

Standing Counsel.

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

1/7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 C