The Madras High Court clarified that though the past conduct would have limited application in deciding disciplinary proceedings as the charges would have to be decided based on the allegations made at the relevant point in time and the evidence gathered, however, they cannot be brushed aside altogether in a case such as the present, where the accused was charged and found guilty on multiple occasions in the course of his service for the same/similar lapses.

The High Court held so while considering a petition seeking to quash proceedings of the presiding officer Labour Court as well as a consequential direction to the first respondent (Management / Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to pay back wages and other attendant benefits to him.

The Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice R. Vijaykumar observed that “The admitted facts are that the Appellant has been charged and found guilty on multiple occasions in the course of his service for the same/similar lapses”.

Thus, “one cannot close one’s eyes to the conduct of the employee over the years and completely ignore the earlier identical instances of dereliction of duty”, added the Bench.

Advocate V. Ajoy Khose appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate D. Sivaraman appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the appellant was a Conductor in TNSTC. Enroute, two checking Inspectors and one Deputy Manager (Traffic) boarded the bus along with six other passengers. One of them complained that though the Conductor had collected money for the ticket, the ticket was not issued. After issuance of charge memo, the appellant tendered an explanation and an enquiry was conducted leading to his dismissal in the year 1995. A preliminary award was however passed holding that there had been violation of principles of natural justice at the first instance. After due hearing, an award came to be passed, wherein the labour Court modified the punishment into one of reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the appellant was held disentitled to back wages and other attendant benefits. On Writ, the High Court reinstated the order of dismissal passed by TNSTC.

After considering the submission, the Bench reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised either by the Tribunal or by the High Court is limited and while exercising power of judicial review, the punishment could not be set aside altogether or substituted unless they find that there has been substantial non-compliance with the Rules of procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justice, resulting in miscarriage of justice or where the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the gravamen of the charge.

At the same time, the Bench noted that there is no merit in the submission relating to violation of principles of natural justice as the Appellant has been heard in detail prior to passing of the final award.

Although there are some flaws such as the address of the complainant being unavailable and the driver not really deposing adverse to the Appellant, however, the Bench refused to come to any different conclusion from that of the writ Court, since the appellant has been unable to disturb the factual matrix and thus, the weight of precedent, to the effect that Courts will be circumspect in the matter of judicial review, tips the balance in favour of the respondents.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: V. Periyakaruppan v. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2023/MHC/4409]

Click here to read/ download the Judgment


Madras High CourtJustice Anita SumanthJustice R. Vijayakumar

Pankaj Bajpai