✦ High Court of India · 25 Jun 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 25 Jun 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

25 Jun 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

1,425 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P. No.6214 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.06.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABALW.P. No.6214 of 2022and W.M.P. No.6276 of 2022The Management ofTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.,Trichy Region,Trichy - 620 001...Petitionervs.1. R. Selvam S/o. G. Rengasamy2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai...RespondentsPRAYER: The Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent in Approval Petition No.49 of 2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 31.01.2019 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.For Petitioner:Mr. Murali Vinodh1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022For Respondents:Mr. K.M. Ramesh, Senior Counselfor Mr. S. Sakthivel [for R1]Mr. L.S.M. Hasan FizalAddl. Government Pleader [for R2]ORDERThis Writ petition has been filed as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Approval Petition No.49 of 2019 dated 09.08.2021 and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 31.01.2019 dismissing the 1st respondent from service.2. The short facts necessary to dispose the Writ petition are as follows:The 1st respondent was working as a 'Driver' in the Petitioner Corporation. While he was joining duty in the petitioner Corporation, he produced his S.S.L.C. Marksheet in Reg. No.357225/APR/93, which was fraudulently created by altering the marks. The above said act is against the Rule 24(4) & 24(40) of the Standing Order of the petitioner Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation issued a Charge Memo dated 21.07.2018 against the 1st respondent, for which, the 1st respondent submitted his reply on 21.07.2018. Being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the 1st respondent, the petitioner Corporation conducted a domestic enquiry. The 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022Enquiry Officer issued a notice dated 05.10.2018 to the 1st respondent to participate in the enquiry on 15.10.2018. The 1st respondent also participated in the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer rendered findings that the charges against the 1st respondent were proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a second Show Cause Notice on the 1st respondent along with the copy of the enquiry report and the same was replied by the 1st respondent on 08.01.2019. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority awarded a punishment of dismissal of service through an order dated 31.01.2019. Further, the petitioner Management filed an application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2nd respondent in A.P. No.49 of 2019. The 2nd respondent refused to grant approval and the said order is now under challenge through this Writ petition by the Management.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management would submit that the 1st respondent produced his S.S.L.C. Marksheet by altering the marks at the time of entering into the petitioner Corporation as 'Driver', thereby the petitioner Corporation initiated Disciplinary proceedings and the Enquiry officer rendered findings after giving opportunity to the 1st respondent to take part in the enquiry proceedings and the report of the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and after furnishing the copy of enquiry report to the 1st respondent workman, a punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the 1st respondent. Further, the petitioner Corporation filed an Approval petition before the 2nd respondent after complying all the formalities as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalla Ram vs. DCM Chemical Works reported in AIR 1978(C) 1004. However, the 2nd respondent erroneously declined to grant approval. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside.4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the charge against the 1st respondent was that the S.S.L.C. Marksheet submitted by the 1st respondent in Reg. No.357225/APR/93 was sent to the Directorate of Government Examinations and the same was compared with original document. At that time, they found that the certificate submitted by the 1st respondent is bogus and he has produced the same, by altering the marksheets. In order to prove the same, the Disciplinary Authority failed to examine the Staff of the Directorate of Government Examinations and failed to examine the material witness and there is no clear evidence as to which document is genuine one. In the document produced by the 1st respondent, 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022there is no any alterations in the marks, which was produced before the petitioner Management at the time of joining duty. Therefore, there is no prima facie case made out based on the acceptable evidence. The original document from the Directorate of Government Examinations has not been marked. Therefore, the Authority passed a reasoned order and declined to grant approval. The order passed by the 2nd respondent is in accordance with law and therefore, the present Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.5. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.6. In this case, the charge against the 1st respondent is that at the time of joining duty as a 'driver' in the petitioner Corporation, he produced the S.S.L.C marksheet in Registraton No.357225/APR/93 and later, on verification, it was found that the said marks mentioned in the mark sheet submitted by the 1st respondent, are not tallied with the marksheet issued by the Directorate of Government Examinations. For the said act, a Charge Memo was issued to the 1st respondent and a domestic enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry proceedings, no any witness from the Directorate of Government Examinations was examined to ascertain whether the document submitted by the 1st respondent during the time of his joining in 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022the petitioner Corporation, is a forged one or not. There is no evidence as to who forged the document. Though the petitioner Corporation had sent a letter to the Directorate of Government Examinations and they also replied the same by stating that there are differences in the marks obtained by the 1st respondent, but there is no evidence as to who created the forged document and which one is forged document. Therefore, there is no prima facie evidence to prove that the 1st respondent has only created the forged marksheet. The failure on the part of the petitioner to examine the Authority from the Directorate of Government Examinations, is fatal to the case. 7. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., vs. M. Periyasamy and another in W.A. No.803 of 2024, wherein this Court, in para no.6, held as follows:-"6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that a charge memo was issued to the 1st respondent/workman for submitting a false certificate, thus, cheating the Corporation and joined duty. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation and domestic enquiry was also conducted. In the enquiry, the false certificates claimed to have been issued by the concerned Educational Officer were marked as management side documents but the person who was alleged to have given the false document was not examined by the management. The principles laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1978 (SC) 1004 Lalla Ram Vs. Management of DCM Chemicals, has been correctly 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022followed by the Labour Court and has held that the genuineness of the record sheet of the 1st respondent was not confirmed, as no efforts were taken to examine the officer who issued the certificate to the 1st respondent and also held that there is no prima facie case made out under enquiry for passing the order of dismissal. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Writ Court, confirming the order passed by Labour Court, need not be interfered with".8. In the case on hand also, the Management failed to examine the officials from the Directorate of Government Examinations, who issued the marksheet to the 1st respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the 2nd respondent declining to grant approval is in order and it does not warrant interference. 9. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that this Writ petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.10. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.06.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/non-speaking ordermjs7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 2022ToThe Special Joint Commissioner of Labour,DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai.P. DHANABAL, J.,mjsW.P. No.6214 of 20228/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.6214 of 202225.06.20259/9

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India