IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos.9970 & 9971 of 2024 G.Balasubramanian S/o.Gurusamy,No.49/157, Sudalaimadan Koil Street, Muthukrishna Puram, Kadaiyanallur, Tirunelveli.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. M/s.State Express Transport Corporation Rep By Its Managing Director, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-02.

2. M/s.State Express Transport Corporation Rep By Its Senior Deputy Manager (HRD), No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-02.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Order No.002145/bvú5/mtpNghf/2022 dated 04.11.2022 and Rejection order issued by 1st respondent in F.vò.20574/bvú5/mtpNghf/2022 dated 29.04.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to restore the original basic pay which was received by the petitioner by virtue of his 32 years of unblemished service rendered in the respondent corporation.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Soundar Raj For Respondent(s): M/s. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent passed in Order No.002145/bvú5/mtpNghf/2022 dated 04.11.2022 and the Rejection order passed by the first respondent vide proceedings in F.vò.20574/bvú5/mtpNghf/2022 dated 29.04.2023, and consequently, a direction to the second respondent to restore the petitioner’s original basic pay.

2. Mr.L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation as a Driver on 03.03.1992 and he retired from the service on 31.03.2025. While he was in service, a Charge Memo came to be issued against him by the second respondent vide proceedings No.002145/DL1/SETC/2022 dated 27.04.2022, alleging that the passengers who were traveling in the petitioner’s bus were diverted to another bus, without issuance of proper tickets, that the old tickets were reused and resold, resulting in revenue shortage, and that entries made in the traffic report were incorrect. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27.04.2022. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted on 12.07.2022, wherein the charges were held to be proved against the petitioner. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent imposed a punishment of reduction to minimum basic pay for three years vide proceedings No.002145/bvú5/mtpNghf/2022 dated 04.11.2022. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent / Appellate Authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 29.04.2023. Challenging the impugned orders passed by the first respondent/Appellate Authority and the second respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was recruited to the post of Driver and was also compelled to discharge the duties of Conductor. It was submitted that the petitioner and one Easwaran had alternately discharged their duties as Driver and Conductor on the route from Sengottai to Kozhikode during the period from 21.01.2022 to 23.01.2022. While so, the allegation that the petitioner had changed the bus route and diverted seven passengers to another bus cannot be sustained, particularly when Easwaran was driving the bus at that relevant point of time. It was further submitted that the said Easwaran was not examined during the enquiry, which vitiates the proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that though it was alleged in the charge memo that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.170/- from one G.Mahendran without issuing a ticket, the said G.Mahendran was not examined in the enquiry. In the absence of ex