The courts reinforce that a party cannot alter its legal position contrary to previous statements made, particularly in matters of liability and departmental action following acquittal.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Region, challenging the order passed by the Writ Court, wherein the punishment imposed by the Management was modified as postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

2. The respondent herein, who was employed as a Driver in the appellants Transport Corporation, was issued with a charge memo on 05.04.2010 alleging that due to his rash and negligent driving, a fatal accident has taken place. Pursuant to a domestic enquiry, he was imposed with a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. On an appeal, the appellate authority has modified the same as postponement of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order, the delinquent has preferred Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.21441 of 2015.

3. The Writ Court, after considering the submissions made on either side, has modified the said punishment as postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and also held that the respondent is entitled to other consequential benefits by treating the period of suspension as duty period. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Management. 4. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants Transport Corporation, the punishment could not be modified by the Writ Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India . He further submitted that there is no dispute that the respondent was involved in a fatal accident that took place on 28.03.2010. He further submitted that due to the said accident, the appellant Corporation had incurred a huge financial loss towards payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased. He also submitted that the Writ Petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the delinquent has to approach the Labour Court challenging the order passed by the appellate authority.

5. The Writ Court, while answering the issue relating to the maintainability, has held that the delinquent attained superannuation on 31.01.2012 and in such circumstances, it would be difficult for him to approach the Labour Court through the Union. The Writ Court has taken into consideration the order of criminal Court in C.C.No.258 of 2010, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Theni, wherein the Criminal Court has acquitted the delinquent on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Writ Court has also relied upon Clause 61 of 12(3) settlement dated 30.10.1992, wherein it has been agreed by the parties that in cases of honourable acquittal, the punishment imposed upon the delinquent could be revised.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the acquittal of the delinquent is not honourable in nature. He pointed out that the acquittal is based upon benefit of doubt. Therefore, Clause 61 of 12(3) settlement dated 30.10.1992 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the Writ Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as against the order passed by the appellate authority and the Writ Court ought to have directed the delinquent to approach the labour Court.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/workman relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik reported in (2025) 4 SCC 321 and contended that the Transport Corporation has taken a stand before the Motor Accident Claims