w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

The Management, Rep. by its Managing Director, State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., Chennai v/s S. Easwaramoorthy & Another

    W.P.Nos. 27124 of 2015, M.P.No. 1 of 2015 & W.M.P.Nos. 12403 & 12404 of 2017
    Decided On, 09 June 2017
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Petitioner: P. Paramasiva Doss, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R. Krishnaswamy, Advocate, R2, S. Diwakar, Special Government Pleader.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in A.P.No.326/2011 on 07.07.2014 and quash the same.)

1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for finaldisposal.

2.Against the order of the second respondent in A.P.No.326 of 2011by which the Approval Petition was rejected, the present writ petition hasbeen filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submitthat having found that the enquiry is free and fair, the second respondentought not have dismissed the Approval Petition by going into the merits of thecase.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent wouldsubmit that the Approval Petition was rejected on the ground that there wasno sufficient evidence to prove the charges.

5.The issue is with respect to the unauthorised absence on the partof the first respondent. This Court finds that the approach of the secondrespondent may not be legally sustainable. The decision was rendered on theground that there is no material to substantiate the charges without giving anyfactual basis for it. Incidentally, it was also held that there is no sufficientmaterial to come to the conclusion that Ex.P4 involves actual one monthsalary. However, remitting the matter either to the second respondentor tothe writ petitioner with respect to the quantum of punishment would lead tounnecessary delay. In a similar matter, this Court has already taken a view thatremitting the matter to the writ petitioner for considering the lesserpunishment, having found that the punishment is disproportionate to thecharges. This Court does not want to undertake the said exercise at this stage.

6. It appears that the punishment is not proportionate to thecharges. It is a case of unauthorised absence, though, for a longer period.Remitting the matter would extend the agony of the firstrespondent/workman. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent alsowould submit that a reasonable order may be passed by this Court, taking intoconsideration the interest of the first respondent/workman.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submitthat taking note of the unauthorised absence, there cannot be any question ofback wages.

8. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writpetition in the following manner:

(i) The order passed by the second respondent is set aside.

(ii) The order passed by the Writ Petitioner so far as the impositionof punishments is also set aside.

(iii)The first respondent / workman is directed to be reinstated bythe Writ petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the dateof receipt of copy of this order. The first responden

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
t / workmanis not entitled for back wages till the date of reinstatement (iv)The first respondent / workman is entitled for continuity ofservice and other incidental benefits which would arise at thetime of his retirement. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.