WA/1688/2026 of The Managing Director Vs C.Chelladurai on 10 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) This intra court appeal is filed by the Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The first respondent was employed under the appellant as a Conductor. He was dismissed from service holding that he had misappropriated Rs.21.50 ps., while working as Conductor and issuing tickets to the passengers. The said misconduct came to light when there was a surprise check conducted by the Checking Inspectors of the Transport Corporation on 03.04.2003. The order of dismissal, dated 22.08.2003, was the subject matter of I.D.No.3 of 2004, raised by the dismissed employee.

2. The Labour Court, considering the evidence and the nature of the charge, ordered reinstatement with attendant benefits, continuity of service and 50% back wages. The award of the Labour Court, dated 27.02.2014, was taken up on appeal by the Management in W.P.No.13922 of 2017. The employee had already attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, when the writ petition came up for final hearing, the learned single Judge, having found that the employee had attained superannuation, modified the award of punishment of dismissal to stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also directed the Management to pay all terminal benefits by computing the length of service till the date of superannuation, but without any back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. In effect, the order of dismissal, which was set aside by the Labour Court by award of reinstatement with 50% back wages, was modified by the learned single Judge with stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and payment of terminal benefits, reckoning the length of service till the date of superannuation as if the employee was in continuous service. However, back wages were denied to the respondent for the period between dismissal and the date of superannuation.

3. This order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the Management, on the ground that the finding of the Labour Court that no witnesses were examined to prove collection of excess money was incorrect and during the surprise inspection, the excess money found, without issuing tickets, was admitted by the delinquent. Furthermore, that was not the first time the respondent was found guilty of misappropriation. Earlier, for similar misconduct, he was removed from service, however, after private settlement, he was reinstated. Even thereafter, twice he was involved in similar misconduct. Therefore, being unbecoming of the Conductor, who was entrusted to collect ticket charge from the passengers after issuing tickets, he could not be retained in service. Hence, he was dismissed from service, after conducting an inquiry in accordance with law. While so, the order of the Labour Court to reinstate the proven delinquent in service is detrimental to the service of the Management, who is a public Transport Corporation. It is further contended that the modified order of the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition in essence was not a punishment at all since the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for habitual misconduct of misappropriation was not adequate. Contrarily for the period between 22.08.2003 (date of dismissal) and 17.02.2017 (date of superannuation) for about 14 years, the employee had not served the Corporation, but the period to be construed for computing retirement benefits would cause undue loss to the Management. The delinquent cannot have monetary advantage for his fault. It was also in the course of argument, learned counsel for the Management circulated a letter given by the respondent delinquent, wherein the respondent, on 15.02.2024, after the disposal of the writ petition but before filing the writ appeal, had given a representation, stating that he was not inclined to pursue his remedy and enforce the order of the learned single Judge due to his family circumstances and, therefore, he would be satisfied if the punishment was modified from dismissal to compulsory retirement and deduct Rs.2.00 lakhs from his retirement benefits and release the balance amount. Therefore, learned counsel for the Management submitted that the order of the learned single Judge, modifying the punishment, which has grave monetary impact on the Management, has to be interfered with.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – delinquent submitted that the previous conduct of the employee cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose while the charge against him for alleged shortage of Rs.21.50 ps. during surprise check tantamounts to misappropriation. The employee had given an appropriate and satisfactory explanation for non-accounting of money. Since the distance between two stops i.e., the stop where the passengers boarded and the stop at which the Checking Inspectors boarded and conducted search was hardly one-and-a-half kilometres, the employee had little time to issue tickets. Though the Management did not accept this statement, the Labour Court considered it for setting aside the punishment of dismissal and substituting it with reinstatement with back wages. The learned single Judge, taking into account that the delinquent had attained superannuation, modified the punishment appropriate to the charge framed, even though not proved. Since the Management with an intention to victimise the respondent delayed implementation of the order of the learned single Judge, the employee resorted to contempt jurisdiction for wilful disobedience. After filing Contempt Petition No.495 of 2026, this intra court appeal was filed with a delay of 336 days. Since the employee was unable to bear his poverty, he gave a letter on 15.02.2024 to treat dismissal as compulsory retirement, which was not given voluntarily, but was due to duress and non-implementation of the modified punishment imposed by the High Court in W.P.No.13922 of 2017, dated 26.07.2023.

5. The rival contentions raised by the respective counsels have been taken into consideration and examined in the light of the material records.

6. The respondent – employee was appointed as a Conductor in the appellant Corporation on 08.11.1984. Though it is contended that before the incident alleged to have taken place on 03.04.2003, there were a few more incidents of misappropriation. We find no material placed during the inquiry or before the Labour Court. The charge against the respondent was not for his habitual misappropriation, but for the sole isolated incident, alleged to have taken place on 03.04.2003. At the appellate stage, we are not inclined to test whether the Management has proved the charge of misappropriation of Rs.21.50 ps. Assuming he has misappropriated the said money, whether dismissal from service is proportionate or shockingly disproportionate is required to be considered.

7. In our view, the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and a clear act of victimization. This observation is well fortified by the following facts. The employee was dismissed from service on 22.08.2003. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages vide award, dated 27.02.2014. The employee attained superannuation in the month of February,2017. Writ Petition was filed in the month of April,2007, after the employee attained the age of superannuation. Due to change of circumstances, the learned single Judge thought it fit to modify the punishment, since the award of reinstatement could not be enforced. At the same time, the learned single Judge also declined to confirm the award of back wages and, in the alternative, directed the Management to compute terminal benefits as if the petitioner had continued in service and got superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation. This modified order was not complied with by the Management, which had forced the employee to file contempt petition. We are informed that the said contempt petition was closed in view of the stay granted in C.M.P.No.15487 of 2026, dated 24.06.2026. The present Writ Appeal was filed on 23.10.2025 with defect and the same was not rectified in time and was represented with a delay of 219 days and, thereafter, delay in paying deficit fee of 195 days was condoned.

8. For the above said facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this Writ Appeal. Hence, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the appellant Management to the respondent employee. The modified punishment, as imposed by the learned single Judge, has to be complied within a period of twelve weeks from today. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.15487 of 2026 is closed. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 10-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DIXIT To The Presiding Officer Labour Court Cuddalore.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DIXIT WA No. 1688 of 2026 10-09-2026