AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the charge memo Pa. No. 1/D4/102/Law/D2/2001 dated 7.3.2001 and to quash in so far as debiting Rs. 10,187.45 in the petitioner
account without enquiry and consequently direct the respondent to pay back the amount with 12% interest, award costs.
The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent Transport Corporation from the year 1974. He was serving in Tirupur Depot
from 1996. On 4.2.2001, he was discharging his duty as Conductor in the bus bearing Registration No. TN.33/N-1069 and the bus proceeded
from Tirupur to Palani at 2.35p.m and returned to Tirupur at 7.45 p.m in the night. Later, it commenced its trip to Erode at 8.00p.m., from Tirupur
and reached Erode at 9.30p.m. According to the petitioner, along with the passengers, he also got down from the bus in the Erode Bus Stand and
helped the driver to take the bus in reverse so as to place the bus in the appropriate rack. He went to take his Bag in the bus which was placed at
the left side of the driver on the dash board. However, to his dismay, he found the Bag missing. In the said Bag, he kept the unused printed ticket
leaves of different denominations together with additional invoice No. 18065, two pens, instruction book regarding luggage rates, identity card,
cash of Rs. 50/- and shirt and he kept the Bag in the dash board because of the fact that he was not provided with a box along with lock and key.
The petitioner immediately informed about the missing of the Bag to the driver of the bus Lingappan and both of them, in turn, informed the
Assistant Manager Mr. Sengottian, who was on duty in the bus stand, in regard to the missing of unused printed ticket leaves and also that he
lodged a written complaint to the police out post at the Erode Bus Stand and further the police came to the bus and made an enquiries about the
missing of the Bag. Later, he, on 5.2.2001, gave a written complaint to the Branch Manager of the respondent/Transport Corporation about the
missing of the unused printed ticket leaves. When he demanded a copy of the first information report based on his complaint dated 4.2.2001, the
out post police at Erode informed him that he should get the first information report only at the Erode Police Station. Thereupon, he approached
the Erode Police Station on 17.2.2001 and since they wanted a complaint, he once again lodged a complaint and the same was registered as FIR
No. 138/2001 and that a copy was furnished to him.
This being the factual position, the respondent issued the charge memo dated 7.3.2001 to the petitioner mentioning that Rs. 10,187.45ps was
debited in his account towards the value of the lost ticket leaves. In the charge memo, it was also alleged that he committed misconduct under
Clause 16(k) of the Model Standing Orders under Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1947.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 10,187.45ps was not the actual loss incurred by the
respondent/Transport Corporation and a sum of Rs. 10,187.45ps was calculated, based on the value printed on the ticket leaves which were lost
and resultantly, the respondent/Transport Corporation deducted the amount of Rs. 10,187.45ps in four equal instalments from the salary of the
petitioner commencing from the month of February 2001, paid on 1.3.2001 and in fact, the recovery of Rs. 10,187.45ps from the salary of the
petitioner was made without notice and conducting an enquiry and after the submission of the written explanation by the petitioner, the respondent
issued an order of warning dated 5.6.2001 to the petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the impugned order dated 7.3.2001 of the respondent/Transport Corporation,
Erode-I deducting the value of a sum of Rs. 10,187.45ps towards the loss of missing of passengers'' tickets and debiting the same in his account
without hearing the petitioner is in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and in reality, originally, the petitioner/conductor lodged the
complaint to Erode bus Stand outpost Police and later gave a written complaint at Erode Town Police which came to be registered as FIR
138/201 and therefore, there was actually no loss that had resulted to the Transport Corporation and when no negligence could be attributed to
the petitioner, then the deduction of value of loss of tickets amounting to Rs. 10,187.45ps from the salary of the petitioner in four equal instalments
commencing from February 2001, paid on 1.3.2001 is per se invalid, illegal and the same is unsustainable in law.
Added further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that u/s 12(3) Settlement dated 28.8.1995 under Industrial Disputes Act, entered
into between the respondent/Transport Corporation and the Trade Union, no deduction can be effected for the loss of ticket leaves if the tickets
are stolen and since in the present case on hand, the petitioner went to the bus bearing Registration No. TN.33/N.1069 on 4.2.2001, to take his
bag which was placed at the left side of the driver on the dash board and to his dismay and shock, found the bag was missing and the factum of
bag missing resulting in the loss of ticket leaves in issue would not result in actual loss of Rs. 10,187.45ps and therefore, by way of prudent
conduct, the Transport Corporation in all fairness ought not to have issued the impugned order dated 7.3.2001 debiting a sum of Rs. 10,187.45ps
to the credit of the petitioner''s account etc was not correct in the eye of law and therefore ,prays for allowing the writ petition to prevent an
aberration of justice.
Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Transport Corporation submits that the petitioner has only lodged two first
information reports, one at the Erode Out post Police Station and later, at the Erode Town Police Station and they are only at the stage of First
information report and nothing concrete have come out, final out come of the first information report lodged and therefore, the impugned order of
the respondent dated 7.3.2001 in debiting a sum of Rs. 10,187.45ps in the account of the petitioner and later on recovering the same in four equal
instalments commencing from the month of February 2001 salary, paid on 1.3.2001 are correct in law and the same need not be interfered with by
this Court in this writ proceedings.
It is to be noted that as per Rule 16(k) of the Model Standing Orders under Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Rules 1947 speaks of negligence or neglect of work'' and by no stretch of imagination the missing of the bag kept in the dash board at the
left side of the driver on 4.2.2001 cannot be equated or termed as negligence or neglect of work'' and the same cannot be construed as an
act/omission constituting misconduct in the eye of law in the considered opinion of this Court.
To lend support to the contention of ''missing of the bag in question does not amount to negligence or neglect of work as specified in Rule
16(k) of the Model Standing Orders under Schedule I to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Rules 1947, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner cites a decision of this Court reported in case of Palanisamy v. Management of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation
Ltd. Dindigul 2002(4) L.L.N. 1129 wherein it is inter alia held that ''subsequent settlement arrived at between the employees and management
provided that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against conductors for loss of ticket book due to theft, riot, accident etc., and the terms of
settlement can be made applicable to the case of the petitioner and on this ground the impugned order of respondent is liable to be set aside and
resultantly the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order of the respondent dated 27.6.1994 is quashed''.
Significantly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the order in W.P. No. 12709 of 1994 dated
30.11.2001 (Palanisamy v. Management of Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation Ltd. Dindigul reported in 2002(4) L.L.N. 1129 has been
confirmed by the Judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.597 of 2002 dated 28.9.2007.
On a careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and also after the arguments projected on both sides, this Court comes to an
inevitable conclusion that when there is a settlement arrived at between the employees and management dated 28.9.1995 to the effect that no
recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the conductor in loss due to the theft, riot, accident etc, certainly a sum of Rs. 10,187.45ps debited
in the account of the petitioner and later the same has been recovered in four equal instalments commencing from the salary of February 2001 paid
on 1.3.2001 are not a valid one and per se, they are illegal and consequently, the action of the respondent/Transport Corporation is not in
accordance with law and also as per the terms of settlement and resultantly this Court quashes the charge memo Pa. No. 1/D4/102Law/D2/2001
dated 7.3.2001 and allows the writ petition without costs.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the charge memo Pa. No. 1/D4/102Law/D2/2001 dated 7.3.2001 is quashed. NO
costs. Since this writ petition is allowed, the respondent/Transport Corporation is directed to refund the entire amount so recovered from the
petitioner without interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.