1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :27.04.2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.4937 of 2011 S.Baskar, Conductor No.08922, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Srivilliputhur Branch, 62A. Kella Street, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar. 2.The Branch Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Srivilliputhur Branch. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings rl;lk;- r1/143/3/2010 dated 15.02.2011 and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.F.Deepak For Respondent: Mr.S.Baskaran Standing counsel for TNSTC O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for TNSTC Limited appearing for the respondents. 2.By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 3.The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings rl;lk;-r1/143/3/2010 dated 15.02.2011. 4.The petitioner was appointed as conductor in TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Virudhunagar Division. On 31.08.2010, in view of acute back pain, he was unable to attend the duty. Later also he has continuously suffered the pain and he has been advised by the doctor to take rest. Thereafter he was served with a charge memo on 20.09.2010 alleging that he has unauthorizedly absented himself. He has offered an explanation for the charge memo on 06.10.2010. Later, on 19.12.2010, a show-cause notice was also issued by the first respondent directing him to reply for their proposal to effect three months increment cut. On 21.01.2011, the petitioner has given his reply to the show cause notice to the first respondent. While so, the impugned order of punishment was passed on 15.02.2011. The present writ petition is filed against that order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of punishment is passed against the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. That apart, he has contended that when an explanation has been offered by the petitioner for the charges made against him, it is expected that an enquiry should be conducted before passing the impugned order of punishment. 6.The learned Standing counsel for TNSTC Limited appearing for the respondents states that the impugned order was passed imposing punishment on the petitioner since the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory. 7.I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents. 8.When a charge has been levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner has offered an explanation for the same, an enquiry should have been conducted before considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. However, no such enquiry was conducted before inflicting punishment against the petitioner. In the explanation, it is not as if the petitioner has accepted the charges levelled against him. The petitioner has offered an explanation for his absence. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that an enquiry should have been conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned order. 9.Taking such view, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings rl;lk;- r1/143/3/2010 dated 15.02.2011 and the writ petition stands allowed. It is needless to say that the first respondent is at liberty to pass orders afresh after conducting an enquiry on the charges made against the petitioner and after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner. 10.With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar. 2.The Branch Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Srivilliputhur Branch. +1CC TO MR.R.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE SR.15692 +1CC TO MR.S.BASKARAN, ADVOCATE SR.15479 Vs SR : 08.06.2011 : 2p/5c W.P.(MD)No.4937 of 2011 27.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/