WP/37674/2024 of S.SARAVANAN Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR on 23 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order in Ref.Ku.No.1/D2/64A/Legal/TNSTC/ER/2018, dated 16.08.2024, passed by the second respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially imposed with a punishment on 23.07.2019 for the alleged charge of causing an accident while driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-2851 on 14.05.2018. Even without conducting any enquiry, the respondents imposed the punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was also defending the criminal prosecution before the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, in S.T.C.No.293 of 2023, wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner by judgment dated 02.03.2024 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months each for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC.

2.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.120 of 2024 before the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode, and subsequently, he was acquitted by judgment dated 25.10.2025. He would further submit that, though the petitioner was imposed with punishment on 23.07.2019, all of a sudden, after the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, convicting the petitioner, the punishment was enhanced vide the impugned order dated 16.08.2024.

3. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is no vested power with the General Manager to enhance the punishment. Even the suo motu power of review could be exercised only within a period of six months, and such power could be exercised only by the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, the approval sought by the petitioner was subsequently rejected by the authority concerned on 06.05.2026. Therefore, the period of absence of the petitioner subsequent to the dismissal order dated 16.08.2024 has to be construed as duty period. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

4. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed the dates and events. Further, he would, in all fairness, submit that the respondents are ready and willing to reinstate the petitioner and would also pay whatever amount is due to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, it is evident that no serious objection has been raised with regard to the merits of the issue. In the case in hand, the dismissal order dated 16.08.2024 was passed based upon the suo motu review power. The said power under Rule 23 of the Common Service Rules can be exercised within a period of six months from the date of imposition of the punishment. In the present case, the initial punishment was imposed on 23.07.2019, whereas the review was taken up only in the year 2024. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the exercise of the review power is clearly beyond the period of six months. Furthermore, such power could be exercised only by the Managing Director of the Corporation, whereas, in the case in hand, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 was passed by the General Manager. Therefore, on both counts, viz., exercising the review power beyond the prescribed period of limitation and exercising such power by an incompetent authority, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

7. Furthermore, the subsequent conviction, which formed the basis for the enhancement of the punishment, has also been set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted in C.A.No.120 of 2024. Therefore, the very cause of action for enhancement of the punishment has also become redundant. To crown it all, when the petitioner had filed an application seeking approval of his dismissal dated 16.08.2024, the said approval was rejected by the Approving Authority on 06.05.2026.

8. Therefore, apart from the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned order is also liable to be interfered with on account of the rejection of the approval by the Approving Authority. Consequently, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors., reported in 2002 (2) SCC 244, it has to be construed that the petitioner was deemed to be in service. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to back wages with all other attendant benefits.

9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also relevant to mention that, even at the time of imposition of the initial punishment, no enquiry was conducted. However, the petitioner had not raised any serious objection, having regard to the lesser punishment imposed against him. Therefore, the fact that no enquiry was conducted become insignificance.

10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, 37 Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore 641043.

2. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Erode Region Office, Chennimalai Road, Erode 638001.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 37674 of 2024 23-09-2026