Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice S.SRIMATHY
M. SHERFUDEEN, – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF – Respondent
WP(MD)/2661/2015
NEGLIGENCE - LOSS OF TICKETS - RECOVERY - [Clause 29 of the 12(3) settlement protects the petitioner from recovery if the loss of tickets is reported to the police and occurred due to theft.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a conductor in the respondent's transport corporation, was held responsible for the loss of 38 ticket books due to theft and was ordered to pay for their value. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that he had reported the theft to the police and that he was protected from recovery under Clause 29 of the 12(3) settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had reported the theft to the police immediately after the incident and that he was therefore protected under Clause 29 of the 12(3) settlement. The court also found that the petitioner had acted negligently in not securing the ticket books properly, and upheld the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable to pay for the lost ticket books; Whether the petitioner was protected from recovery under Clause 29 of the 12(3) settlement; Whether the petitioner had acted negligently.
Ratio Decidendi: Clause 29 of the 12(3) settlement protects the petitioner from recovery if the loss of tickets is reported to the police and occurred due to theft.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order requiring the petitioner to pay for the lost ticket books and directed the respondents to refund the amount already deducted. The court also confirmed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect.
W.P(MD) No.2661 of 2015 and
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY
W.P(MD) No.2661 of 2015 and
M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015
M. Sherfudeen
:Petitioner
..vs..
The management of
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,
Madurai Region,
Rep. by its General Manager,
Madurai.
: Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the respondent in
Ref.O.Na.Thu/D6/SIP/837, quash the same and consequently to direct
the respondent to refund the amount already recovered from the
monthly wages of the petitioner to him and further direct the
respondent to treat the period from 22.09.2012 to 12.10.2012 as his
duty period with pay for all purpose.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Arunachalam
For Respondent
: Mr. Senthil Kumaraiah
O R D E R
The Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated
12.01.2015 passed by the respondent in Ref.O. Na.Thu/D6/SIP/837 and
consequently to direct the respondent to refund the amount already
recovered from the monthly wages of the petitioner to him and
further direct the respondent to treat the period from 22.09.2012 to
12.10.2012 as his duty period with pay for all purpose.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent
Corporation on 02.07.1997 and was given promotion as Senior Grade
Conductor and also Special Grade Conductor. On 08.09.2012, while
the petitioner was on duty in the Registration No. TN 58 N 1913
1/5
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.P(MD) No.2661 of 2015 and
running between Madurai and Tuticorin and the duty period is from
07.09.2012 to 08.09.2012 by 1.30 am on the next day. The petitioner
was given Electronic Ticket Machine to issue tickets to the
passengers. The petitioner has issued 38 ticket books with
different denominations apart from ETM machine. In case of failure
in ETM machine the petitioner was directed to use tickets from the
ticket books.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the bus started
by 10.45 pm at Tuticorin Bus Stand to go to Madurai and the bus
reached the Madurai Mattuthavani Bus stand at 1.30 am and the
passengers got down from the bus and the petitioner left the bag in
the bus and found that the bag in which the ticket books were kept
missing and the 38 ticket books were stolen. The petitioner
immediately informed the police and complaint was registered in
Receipt No.404 of 2012, dated 09.09.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner
informed the Branch office and also produced CSR receipt to the
office of the respondent. On 22.09.2012 the petitioner was declined
work and in turn orally directed to remit Rs.37,364/- towards the
stolen tickets. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuously denied
“work”. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.10.2012
to allow him to work. The petitioner raised a industrial dispute
before the Labour officer, Madurai by a petition dated 11.10.2012.
Thereafter, the respondents issued a charge memo dated 10.10.2012.
The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 22.10.2012 and
thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to work from 13.10.2012.
4. The contention of the petitioner is he was illegally
denied work from 22.09.2012 to 12.10.2012. An enquiry was initiated
and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to prove his case and
the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 19.04.2013 alleging
the charges are proved. Thereafter, the respondent issued notice
dated 28.11.2013 directing the petitioner to submit an explanation
as to why the findings of the enquiry officer should not be accepted
and also why should not imposed the punishment of stoppage of
increment for one year with cumulative effect along with recovery
from his wages. The petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
