Madras High Court
WP/24445/2024 of S.DHANDAPANI Vs TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 11 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 24445 of 2024
and WMP.Nos.26740 & 26741 of 2024
S.Dhandapani
S/o.K.Subramaniyan,
No.910 Jothampatti,
Madathukulam Taluk,
Tirupur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (coimbatore) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, 37
Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore 641043.
2. The General Manager
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(coimbatore) Ltd.,
Tirupur Region,
Kangeyam Salai, Tirupur.
3. The Branch Manager
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation
(coimbatore) Ltd.,
Udumalpet Branch, Tirupur District.
4. G.Mani
S/o.Ganapathy, Tnstc Driver,
Kanniyur (po),
Madathukulam (tk),
Tirupur District 642203.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent in proceeding No. 11956/ mavame / TNSTC /(Co)/2024, transferring the petitioner from Udumalpet branch, Tirupur Region to Thalavadi, Erode Region and the relieving order No.6899 dated 14.08.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to retain the petitioner and to allow him to continue his services as a driver in Udumalpet branch, award costs.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Manish Kumar
for Mr.Krishnaswamy R.
For Respondent(s):
Mr.C.Gouthamaraj
Standing Counsel for R1 To R3
No appearance for R4
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent in proceeding No. 11956/ mavame / TNSTC /(Co)/2024, transferring the petitioner from Udumalpet Branch, Tirupur Region to Thalavadi, Erode Region and the relieving order No.6899 dated 14.08.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to retain the petitioner and to allow him to continue his services as a driver in Udumalpet Branch.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Casual Driver on 24.11.1998 and made permanent in the year 2000 and he has rendered 26 years of unblemished service at Udumalpet Branch. He is an active member of Tamil Nadu Arasu Pokkuvarathu Seerudai Paniyalar Thozhir Sangam and had been raising genuine grievances against respondents 2 and 3 regarding refusal to issue leave application and duty card, non-payment of night allowance and compelling the drivers to work for 19 hours continuously which is in violation of Section 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act. While so, regarding plying of TATA buses fitted with Leyland engines, complaints dated 31.03.2022, 18.07.2022 and 13.09.2022 were made to the 1st respondent and Labour Officer and the RTO on enquiry, found that 23 buses of Udumalpet Depot were running illegally with Leyland engines and refused FC and the petitioner had also sought information under the RTI Act regarding bogus educational qualification of one G.Mani, LPF Vice President of Tirupur Region who had produced 8th standard certificate, though he studied only up to 3rd standard, due to which there was an enmity. The said G.Mani, in collusion with respondents 2 and 3, set up a false complaint in the name of his own sister-in-law N.Kannammal of Kaniyur Village alleging that on 19.05.2023, while driving Bus No.TN38 N 1427 on Route No.29, the petitioner did not take the bus inside Kaniyur bus stand, pursuant to which a charge memo dated 27.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner without furnishing the relied upon documents despite representation dated 01.02.2024 regarding brake failure of the said bus duly entered in log book, and pending the said charge, the impugned order of transfer dated 13.08.2024 transferring the petitioner from Udumalpet Branch, Tirupur Region to Thalavadi Branch, Erode Region and the consequential relieving order dated 13.08.2024 have been passed with mala fide intention and as a measure of punishment, which is without jurisdiction as Clause 28 of the Certified Standing Orders conferring power of transfer stood deleted by order dated 01.04.2022 of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai in SOA No.4 of 1995 and inter-region transfer is prohibited by Clause 9 of the approved scheme of amalgamation and hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as being passed in colourable exercise of power and in abuse of power of transfer. Hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner though vehemently contended initially that according to the Certified Standing Order, the petitioner cannot be transferred, he has now restricted his arguments only to the extent that the transfer from one region to another region, that too, without getting the consent from the employee is in violation of Clause 9 of the amalgamation order. It is his submission that Udumalpet and Thalavadi are two different regions and therefore a person who is working in Udumalpet cannot be transferred to Thalavadi, as both come under different regions, i.e., Udumalpet comes within the Coimbatore region and Thalavadi comes within Erode region. In support of his contention, he relied upon order dated 12.09.2017 in W.P.No.6289 of 2017 Chidambaram.S. Vs The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Coimbatore and another where the impugned order transferring the petitioner from Coimbatore to Ooty was set aside on the premise that the same is contrary to the Clause 9 of the amalgamation order.
4. However, the learned Standing Counsel, by relying upon the appointment order, contented that the petitioner could be transferred, within the jurisdiction of the Corporation and in support of the said contention he has also submitted the appointment letter dated 11.11.1998.
5. Though the appointment letter states that the petitioner can be transferred within the jurisdiction of the Corporation, now, the main contention put forth by the petitioner is that the Corporation which he belonged to initially was Cheran Transport Corporation and the region in which he has now been posted comes under the jurisdiction of the Jeeva Transport Corporation. Therefore, the appointment order will, in no way, advance the case of the respondents.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be outrightly eschewed in view of the reasoning adduced by him. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that when the petitioner has taken a specific defence in respect of prohibition for an inter-region transfer, the counter affidavit of the respondent did not meet out the defence raised by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the contention raised by the petitioner needs to be accepted on the basis of the orders of this Court passed in Chidambaram, supra case. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.
7. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DPQ
To
1. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (coimbatore) Ltd., Rep. By Its Managing Director, 37 Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore 641043.
2. The General Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (coimbatore) Ltd., Tirupur Region, Kangeyam Salai, Tirupur.
3. The Branch Manager Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (coimbatore) Ltd., Udumalpet Branch, Tirupur District.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J. DPQ WP No. 24445 of 2024 11-09-2026