Madras High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Bus Conductor Dismissed From Service For Non-Issuance Of Ticket, Having Excess 7 Rupees In Bag

Justice PB Balaji said that the order of termination from service was grossly disproportionate and criticized the action of the State Transport Department of relying on earlier proceedings against Ayyanar, even though they had been settled.

“The punishment meted out is grossly disproportionate to the offence and it shakes the conscience of the Court. Moreover, this Court does not appreciate this procedure adopted by the respondent Corporation by referring to earlier concluded proceedings for holding the latest charge against the petitioner. For all these reasons, the Writ Petitioner is entitled to relief from this Court,” the court observed.

Ayyanar told the court that he had been working as a Conductor since 2007 when in September 2015 he was issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation for a charge that he had allegedly committed in August 2015. He said thereafter, in October 2015, another show cause notice was issued calling upon him as to why he should not be removed from services. He further submitted that though he had given a detailed explanation, the respondent corporation terminated him from service. He also contended that the Corporation had relied on earlier charges against him for which he was already punished.

He also submitted that he had issued tickets to all passengers and that the lady passenger had shifted the blame on him after loosing her ticket and fearing fine by the checking inspector. Thus, he contended that the order of termination was illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

The corporation on the other hand submitted that the Ayyanar had acted in a manner causing loss to the Corporation and that he failed to act as a responsible employee of the Corporation. It also submitted that it was justified in looking into the past history and as such the order was not liable to be interfered with.

The court noted that even if the version of Ayyanar was accepted, the same was not in the nature of causing loss to the corporation. Further, the court observed that there was no malafide or malice in the present case but could have been an unintentional mistake which did not warrant termination from service.

“It is really surprising that in respect of such a charge, the respondent has removed the petitioner from service by imposing maximum penalty. It is needless to state that in such cases of charges of be it Rs.7/- or Rs.2/- no malafide or malice can be imputed and the same could have even been the result of inadvertent or unintentional act of the petitioner, which does not warrant penalty in the nature of terminating the petitioner from service,” the court noted.

Thus, the court quashed the order of termination and directed Ayyanar to be reinstated with all attendant benefits within a period of six weeks.

Case Title: A Ayyanar v The General Manager

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 183

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Elambharathi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Aswim, Standing Counsel