Factual Background

In the case of A. Ayyanar v. General Manager The Tamil Nadu Public Transport Corporation suspended the conductor’s employment as a result of prior charges, and a writ petition seeks to overturn that decision. The petitioner, a conductor, began working for the TNSTC in 2007 and has continued to do so. The TNSTC demanded a show-cause explanation for a charge against the petitioner on May 9, 2015. The Enquiry Officer judged the petitioner guilty of the accusations despite his defence. The petitioner was also charged with failing to give a woman passenger a ticket after accepting Rs. 5 as the fare and having an extra Rs. 7 in his money bag. The petitioner stated that all passengers received tickets on the alleged day and that the female passenger’s ticket was missing. The petitioner claimed that the female passenger had placed the blame squarely on him or her as if no ticket had ever been issued

Analysis of court order 

After the Madras High Court’s single judge panel struck down the challenged decision, Justice PB. Balaji ordered TNSTC to reinstate the petitioner with continued employment, back pay, and all associated benefits within six weeks of the ruling’s delivery.

None of the charges listed in the show cause notice, according to the Court, appear to be significant or grave. The petitioner’s reasoning is also incredibly credible and acceptable. TNSTC shouldn’t have relied on previously completed processes, especially when it came to a specific charge involving the non-issuance of a ticket and having more money than necessary in his money bag. According to the Court, even if it accepts the petitioner’s claim that he issued a ticket after receiving Rs. 5 from the female passenger, the surplus cash on hand would only be Rs. 2. This cannot be considered a loss-causing act for TNSTC. The Court was taken aback by TNSTC’s decision to remove the petitioner from work and impose the maximum punishment in response to such an accusation. Furthermore, it claimed that the sentence was wildly out of proportion to the crime and had shattered the court’s confidence in its justice. The Court also objected to the TNSTC’s method of holding the most recent charge against the petitioner by holding up previously concluded processes.

CASE NAME – A. Ayyanar v. General Manager, Writ Petition No. 17326 of 2016