1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/3/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.1565 and 1566 of 2011 R. Selvaraj ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1565/2011 a n d P. Ayyanar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1566/2011 Vs 1. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited Bye Pass Road – Division I Madurai. 2. The Special Officer Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vannarapettai Tirunelveli 3. ... Respondents in both the petitions. Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writs of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent in his proceedings ghh;it/ XeJ /D7/ g[F 241 ,242 dated 12/10/2010 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to reimburse the salary deducted from the petitioner. For Petitioners : Mr.Babu Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.S.Baskaran - - - - - - C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1565 of 2011 is working as a Senior Grade Conductor and the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1566 of 2011 is working as a Driver under the respondent Corporation. 2. The petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petitions, challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 12/10/2010, wherein and where under, a sum of (Rs.40,500/- + Rs.40,500/-) Rs.81,000/- was deducted from the salary of the petitioners in twenty monthly instalments. 3. The case in a nut shell is stated here under:- The first respondent had issued a show cause notice on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitioners, alleging that the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.1565 of 2011 was collecting a sum of Rs.11/- instead of Rs.3/- from three passengers, who were all boarded the bus at Valliyoor. A complaint has been preferred in C.C.No.4 of 2009 before the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli. An award has been passed for a sum of Rs.81,000/-. The petitioners were not parties before the said Consumer Forum. On the basis of the award passed by the Consumer Forum, the respondents have decided to deduct the amount from the petitioners. 4. A Show cause notice was caused to the petitioners and the petitioners offered their explanations. An enquiry was conducted, basing on the charges. While so, the present impugned orders came to be passed, without even considering the explanations offered by the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12/10/2010. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that (i). The impugned orders have been passed by the first respondent without even considering the explanations offered by the petitioners and without giving reasons for passing the impugned orders. (ii). The recovery cannot be made based on the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli, since the petitioners were not parties before the Consumer Forum. (iii). Even before the Consumer Forum, the respondents have denied the allegations made by the complainants. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that (i). Sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioners to put forth their cases and thereafter, only, impugned orders came to be passed. (ii). Basing on the reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer only, impugned orders were passed and the same cannot be faulted. (iii). The District Consumer Forum has passed an award against the petitioners, since the petitioners are the real persons involved in the incident, basing on which the complaint has been preferred before the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli, petitioners therefore were directed to compensate 50% of the amount awarded by the said Forum. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. It is not in dispute that the complaint was lodged by the persons, who have travelled in the bus in which the petitioners were the Senior Grade Conductor and the Driver respectively and the said complaint was taken on file by the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.4 of 2009. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties in the said proceedings. The respondents were parties in the said proceedings. They have contested the said complaint and an award has been passed by the Consumer Forum for a sum of Rs.81,000/-. The said order made by the District Forum cannot be put against the petitioners, since the petitioners were not parties to the said proceedings. 9. However, it has to be seen that though the award passed by the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli was the basis for the recovery to be made against the petitioners, the petitioners were issued with charge memo dated 23/4/2010 and the petitioners were called upon to explain for the charges. A domestic enquiry was conducted by the respondents. A report has been filed by the Enquiry Officer. Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners to explain why the amount awarded by the District Consumer Forum, Tirunelveli cannot be recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners have offered their explanations. However, without considering the explanations offered by the petitioners, the impugned orders seem to have been passed by the first respondent. 10. It would be useful to extract the impugned orders passed by the first respondent and is extracted here under. "nkw;fz ;l bghUs; bjhlh;ghf ghh;it 9-y; Fwpg;gpl;L ckf;F tH '; ;fg ;gl;l fhuzk; fhl;lf ; nfhUk; mwptpg;gpw;F e Ph ; ghh;it-10 y; Fwpg;gpl;L mspj;Js ;s ckJ gjpypy; cj;njr jz;lidia Fiwj;Jf ; bfhs;snth my;yJ Kw;wpYkhf tpyfpf; bfhs;snth e Ph ; vt;tpj g[jpa fUj;Jf ;fisa[k ; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy. vdnt nkw;go Fw;wr ;rhlow;F Fwpg;gpl;l jz;lidahf cj;njr Koit cWjp bra;J ""nkw;go rk;gtj;jhy; 3 gazpfSf;F juntz;oa e&;l<l;Lj ; bjhifahd U.81000/- y; ghjpj; bjhifahd U.40500/- I 20 jtiz Kiwapy; ckJ rk;gsj;jpypUe;J gpoj;jk; bra;a ,jd; Kyk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ."" k Pz ;Lk ; ,Jnghd;w g[fhh;fSf;F ,lkspf;fhky; ftdkhf gzpg[hpa ntz;Lk; vd;W mwpt[Wj;jg ;gLfpwJ." 11. The above said orders would reveal that the explanation of the petitioners were not at all considered by the respondents before passing the impugned orders. The basis of the orders passed by the first respondent could not be culled out from the said orders. Thus, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned orders of the first respondent is a non-speaking order, giving no reasons whatsoever. 12. In the above back drop of the matters, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the said orders came to be passed by the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 respondent without considering the explanations offered by the petitioners. 13. In fine, the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned orders of the first respondent dated 12/10/2010 are set aside. 14. It is reported by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents have already deducted a portion of the amount from the salary of the petitioners. Since the impugned orders of the first respondent are set aside, it is needless to say that the respondents have to return the amounts, which were recovered from the salary of the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited Bye Pass Road – Division I Madurai. 2. The Special Officer Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vannarapettai Tirunelveli 3. +2 CC TO MR. BABU RAJENDRAN, ADVOCATE S.R NOS.7866&7687 +2 CC TO MR.S.BASKARAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 7769&7770 W.P.(MD)Nos.1565 and 1566 of 2011 23.03.2011 mvs PAM 05.04.2011/7C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/