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



V. Sivagnanam v/s The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram

    WP. No. 1597 of 2016 & WMP. No. 1360 of 2016

    Decided On, 18 October 2022

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: R. Karunagaran, Advocate. For the Respondent: S. Pavithra, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service on the basis of the acquittal order passed in C.C.No.210 of 2010 dated 13.02.2012.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service on the basis of the acquittal order passed in C.C.No.210 of 2010 dated 13.02.2012.

2. The petitioner states that he was selected as Reserve Crew in the respondent-Transport Corporation by an order dated 19.03.2010 and he was appointed as Driver on temporary basis.

3. A criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner and the said criminal case was ended with an order of acquittal. During the pendency of the criminal case, the Authorities have discharged the writ petitioner from service on the ground of unsatisfactory and poor performance of work in the respondent-Transport Corporation.

4. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Driver on temporary basis and during the period of probation, he was declared as not fit to continue in service due to unsatisfactory and poor performance of work in the respondent-Transport Corporation. Such a decision taken by the Authorities are in consonance with the service conditions. An employee, who is on probation, if found not satisfactory, then the Authorities Competent are empowered to discharge the employee from service.

5. In the present case, a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner and an order of acquittal would not be a ground to claim exoneration from the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6. The departmental disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case are distinct and different and the procedures to be followed are not comparable.

7. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary employee and within a period of one year, he was discharged from service on account of unsatisfactory and poor performance of work in the respondent-Transport Corporation. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in res

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

pect of the order passed by the respondent-Transport Corporation. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
O R