W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 10.08.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 19.08.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.DILIP KUMAR

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

K.Perumalsamy (died)

Vijayakumari

(the petitioner is substituted vide order

dated 08.08.2025) .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,

Bypass Road,

Madurai.

2.The General Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,

Dindigul Region,

Dindigul. .. Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to

the impugned order passed by the 1

st

respondent in Parvai:LD3BT/8157

dated 5.5.2017 in imposing the punishment of increment cut for four years

with cumulative effect and quash the same and consequently direct the

Respondents to restore increment for 4 years with all cumulative attendant

benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Guhan

For Respondents: Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah

standing counsel

Page 1 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by one K.Perumalsamy against the

Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai)

Limited, Madurai, as well as against the General Manager of Tamil Nadu

State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, Dindigul.

2.The writ petitioner had sought for the issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus seeking to quash the order of the first respondent

dated 05.05.2017 and for a consequential Mandamus to restore the benefits

that were denied under the order impugned. Pending writ petition,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy died on 16.11.2020 and his widow has been brought on

record.

3.I have heard Mr.K.Guhan, learned counsel appearing for the writ

petitioner and Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, learned standing counsel appearing

for the respondents. I have perused the materials available on record. The

written submissions filed on either side are also perused.

4.It is seen from the records that the writ petitioner, viz.,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy was working as a Driver in the respondent Corporation

viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited. There was

a road accident on 31.08.2012 around 21.00 hours involving the bus bearing

Reg.No.TN 57 N 1923 belonging to the respondent Corporation and driven by

Page 2 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

its Driver, viz., Mr.K.Perumalsamy (original writ petitioner) and a two wheeler

bearing Reg.No.TN 57 Q 5197. In such road accident, the pillion rider of the

two wheeler, Tmt.Shanthamani died. This led to three different proceedings

across different fora.

5.A criminal case in Crime No.22 of 2012 on the file of the Ambilikai

Police Station was registered against the original writ petitioner, viz.,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of

I.P.C. Mr.K.Perumalsamy was charge sheeted by the prosecution and was

tried in CC.No.56 of 2013 before the Court of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Ottanchathiram. After trial, on merits, the said CC.No.56 of 2013

ended in acquittal in favour of Mr.K.Perumalsamy. The learned trial Judge

held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt.

6.Arising out of the same accident, the family members of the

deceased filed MCOP.No.1173 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Dindigul (herein after referred to as MACT). The written submission

filed on the side of the respondents informs that the Tribunal had allowed

the claim petition on 30.06.2015 and held that the respondent Corporation,

viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, is liable to

pay a compensation of Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at 7.5% and accordingly,

the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs.8,20,000/-.

Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

7.The respondent Corporation also instituted the disciplinary

proceedings against the original writ petitioner, Mr.K.Perumalsamy, which is

the subject matter of the present writ petition. The original writ petitioner,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy, was suspended on 01.09.2012; issued with a charge

memo on 09.09.2012; upon conclusion of domestic enquiry, an enquiry

report was made ready on 24.03.2013; and after issuing a second show

cause notice dated 22.05.2013, the original writ petitioner,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy, was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of annual

increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect by the second

respondent on 04.12.2013.

8.The said punishment order passed by the second

respondent/Transport Corporation is available in the paper book. It reads

that the respondents were not finding any reasons to take a different view

from that of the Enquiry Officer and considering the past service of the

original writ petitioner, Mr.K.Perumalsamy and to grant him one more

opportunity, taking a lenient view, he is imposed with such punishment of

stoppage of annual increment for a period of five years with cumulative

effect.

9.Challenging this order, the original writ petitioner,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy, came before this Court with a writ petition in W.P.(MD)

Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

No.2355 of 2016. In the meanwhile, he had filed an appeal before the first

respondent on 23.01.2014. Therefore, when the writ petition was taken up

for final hearing on 05.12.2016, he confined his request for a limited relief to

direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner

on 23.01.2014. This Court, vide order dated 05.12.2016, accepted the said

request and directed the first respondent to pass orders on the pending

appeal within a period of one week.

10.Subsequent to the passing of the above order, the first respondent

passed an order on 23.03.2017 in the pending appeal. The first respondent

after referring to the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in

W.P.(MD) No.23551 of 2016 (stated supra), held that the past conduct of the

original writ petitioner is not inspiring and referred to the civil liability

imposed on the second respondent, viz., Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, Dindigul, by MACT to

deposit a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- with interest at 7.5%. The Appellate

Authority however modified the punishment and reduced it to stoppage of

annual increment for a period of four years instead of five years. Granting

such limited reduction of the number of years for stoppage of increment, the

appeal was otherwise dismissed.

11.Thereafter, the original writ petitioner, Mr.K.Perumalsamy, seems

to have made one another representation/appeal to the first respondent and

Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

the same has been disposed of under the impugned order dated 05.05.2017.

It is held in the impugned order that the original writ petitioner has not

made out any new grounds warranting any change of mind or for reduction

of punishment and accordingly, such request of the writ petitioner,

Mr.K.Perumalsamy, was rejected. The writ petitioner while filing this writ

petition on 10.11.2017, sought to place reliance upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu State

Transport Corporation, Tiruchirappalli, rep. by its Managing Director

and another Vs. P.Karuppusamy , reported in 2008-I-LLJ-460 (Mad).

12.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a specific reference

to the counter statement filed on behalf of the respondent Management

before the MACT, Dindigul. He would therefore argue that the respondent

Management could not have punished the writ petitioner, as even according

to the respondent Management, the writ petitioner was not responsible for

the accident. He would argue that having taken such a stand in their

counter to the claim petition, the respondents could not have found the writ

petitioner, Mr.K.Perumalsamy guilty for the act of negligent driving and

thereby, causing loss to the respondent Management.

13.In the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition on 16.04.2018 by

the respondent Management the maintainability of the writ petition is

objected to, on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy before the

Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Labour Court. The counter affidavit does not traverse into the merits of the

matter.

14.This writ petition has remained pending before this Court for

almost 9 years. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on

10.08.2026, both the learned counsel fairly submitted that the facts in issue

are not in dispute; what is challenged is the order of punishment in effect,

though there is no specific mention to the previous proceeding of the second

respondent dated 04.12.2013 and the proceeding of the first respondent

dated 23.03.2017.

15.The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the

respondent Corporation is bound by its pleadings before the MACT,

Dindigul, wherein they have specifically held that the writ petitioner/their

Driver was not responsible for the accident and can they take a different view

in the disciplinary proceedings.

16.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation

raised an objection to entertain the writ petition on the premise that the writ

petition is not entertainable, as there is an effective alternative appellate

remedy available to the writ petitioner before the Labour Court.

Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

17.The respective counsel referred to various precedents of this Court

in support of their contentions. I will refer to them in the later part of this

order.

18.Before I proceed to consider the submissions on the merits of the

matter, I would take up the objection of the respondent Management that

the writ petition is not entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, as there is an alternative appellate remedy available to the writ

petitioner.

19.It has been long settled in a catena of decisions that the restriction

of a Writ Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, whenever there is an effective alternative appellate

remedy, is only a self imposed restriction and there is no absolute bar and

there are established exceptions available to the said Rule. Some of the

exceptions are, when there is a violation of principles of natural justice;

when the impugned proceeding is absolutely lacking in jurisdiction; when

there is a non speaking order lacking in reasons; when fundamental rights

are violated; and when the writ petition is kept pending before the Court for

a substantial time, more so when it does not involve disputed questions of

facts.

Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

20.In this case, the original writ petitioner, Mr.K.Perumalsamy, having

filed the case on 10.11.2017 died on 16.11.2020; and thereafter, upon filing

of a substitution application in W.M.P.(MD) No.16948 of 2025,

Tmt.Vijayakumari, W/o.Mr.K.Perumalsamy, has been brought on record. It

would be too harsh on the widow to be now compelled after 9 years to go

before the alternative forum ie., Labour Court and raise an industrial dispute

against the punishment imposed way back in 2013.

21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment delivered in Durga

Enterprises Private Limited and another Vs. Principal Secretary

Government of U.P. and others reported in (2004) 13 Supreme Court

Cases 665 has held that the High Court having entertained the writ petition

and kept it pending for a long period of 13 years ought not to have dismissed

the writ petition summarily on the ground that there is an alternative

appellate remedy available and it is only proper on the part of the High Court

to decide the case on merits instead of relegating the parties to the

alternative forum.

22.The aforesaid judgment is recently followed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs.

Chief General Manager and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC

1400. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not

Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

proper to throw a person on the ground of availability of alternative remedy

after 10 years. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“8.Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the

merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that

no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ

jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be

considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for

claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.1 Further, throwing a writ

petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10

years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits,

is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact

which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without

recording formal evidence”

23.Furthermore, in this case, there are no disputed question of facts.

The issue revolves around a legal precinct. I therefore negative the objections

raised by the learned standing counsel for the respondents upon the

entertainability of this writ petition.

24.The learned counsel for the respondent Management has referred

to the Full Bench decision of this Court delivered in the case of V.Syril

Sundararaj Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thirunelveli and

others reported in 2024-2-CTC-465 = 2024-3-MLJ-22 = 2024-1-

Wr.L.R.-580.

25.In the said decision, a reference against the correctness of the order

relied upon by the writ petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition, i.e.,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tiruchirappalli, rep. by its

Page 10 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Managing Director and another Vs. P.Karuppusamy , reported in 2008-I-

LLJ-460 (Mad) is doubted. The Hon'ble Full Bench in the said decision has

held that the State Transport Corporation is not barred by the principle of

estoppel in initiating disciplinary proceedings against its employee/Driver,

because they have filed a counter statement in his favour before the MACT.

The Hon'ble Full Bench has held as follows:-

“15.In a MACT proceedings, where the Government or TNSTC

is a respondent, the driver is not made as a party. The parties to

such proceedings are the injured or representatives of the deceased

and the Transport Corporation. It is possible that the driver might

be called as a witness. By the very nature of proceedings, a MACT

only decides the issue of fastening of liability. In such a proceeding,

the State Transport Corporation being a corporate body, cannot be

aware as to the nature and the manner of the accident. It is here,

the submission made by Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal becomes relevant.

The stand taken by the Management is based on the statement that

was given by the driver as to what transpired at the time of the

accident. In other words, there is no representation by the

Management to the workman, but the state of affairs stated by the

workman is captured in the counter and filed as a defence in the

MACT proceedings. This shows that there is no representation from

the side of the Management to the workmen. In fact, if there has

been a representation by one person, it is the representation of the

driver to the Management and not vice versa. Without a

representation from the Management, which is sine qua non, for

applying the rule of estoppel, the said principle cannot be made

applicable here.

......

......

30. During the course of enquiry or before the Labour Court,

it is always open to the driver to confront the witness, that may be

presented by the Management, with the counter affidavit and when

the witness is so confronted, it is always open to the said witness

to explain the so called admission. That does not preclude the

Management from initiating proceedings as against the labourer

under its Standing Orders. The relationship between an employer

and employee depends upon the standing orders and therefore, to

read the judgement of Karuppusamy's case is a bar to initiate

Page 11 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

disciplinary proceedings, is to read a bit too much into the same.

31. In the light of the above discussion we would answer the

question as follows:

(i) That the Management having filed a counter in the MACT

proceedings defending its driver, it does not preclude it from

initiating disciplinary proceedings against the driver.

(ii) The position to the contra as laid down in TNSTC vs.

Karuppusamy stands over ruled.”

26.The learned counsel for the respondent Management also referred

to a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case

of M.Raja Vs. The Managing Director, TNSTC, Madurai and another ,

W.A.(MD) No.647 of 2021, dated 10.03.2026.

27.The Hon'ble Division Bench followed the aforesaid Full Bench

decision and refused to accept the proposition canvassed on the side of the

workman that the decision of the Full Bench is diluted, because of the

subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra

State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik reported

in (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 321 . The Hon'ble Division Bench in the

said case had distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on

facts.

28.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner requested this

Court to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mahadeo Krishna

Page 12 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Naik reported in (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 321 and submitted that

the case is squarely covered under the said judgment and he also sought to

place reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court

delivered in the case of The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation Vs. General Secretary , WA.No.209 of 2026 , dated

23.02.2026. He also wanted to draw the attention of this Court to another

judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of The Management of

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. General Secretary , W.P.

(MD) No.8924 of 2021, dated 12.06.2025.

29.Thus, it is evident that the employee wants the Management to be

bound by its pleadings filed before the MACT, Dindigul, whereas the

respondent Management wants to wriggle out of the same by referring to the

precedents cited in their support.

30.The Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of V.Syril Sundararaj Vs. The

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thirunelveli and others reported in

2024-2-CTC-465 = 2024-3-MLJ-22 = 2024-1-Wr.L.R.-580 was considering

the correctness of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and another Vs.

S.Karuppusamy, reported in (2008) 3 LW 90 = (2008) 1 LLJ 460.

Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

31.The primary issue and the answer given by the Full Bench is that if

the respondent Management had filed a counter in the MACT proceedings

defending its Driver, the respondent Management need not be restrained

from initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Driver, when upon

conclusin the MACT overruled the defence of the management and held its

driver responsible for the accident and accordingly it concluded that “no plea

of estoppel” will lie against the Management.

32.The Full Bench was conscious in noticing that the Driver will

always have an opportunity to confront the witness of the Management

during the proceedings before the Labour Court with the counter affidavit

filed by the Management before the MACT in his favour.

33.The Full Bench had also explained its reasonings by the

observation of the facts recorded in paragraph No.15 (extracted supra),

wherein it has been stated that the Management normally takes a stand

before the MACT, based on the statement given by its Dri ver as to what

transpired at the time of accident and therefore, when ultim ately the

Tribunal refuses to accept such stand of the Management and holds that the

Management is responsible for the compensation payable due to the accident

caused by its Driver, the Management can always have a change of

mind and initiate disciplinary proceedings. This observation of the Full

Page 14 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Bench turns our case in entirety, when the said judgment is applied to the

facts of the present case.

34.Before I proceed on this aspect, it is necessary to notice the facts in

the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench delivered in the case of M.Raja

Vs. The Managing Director, TNSTC, Madurai and another , W.A.(MD) No.

647 of 2021, dated 10.03.2026.

35.The Hon'ble Division Bench in the said case has rightly held that

the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding, civil proceeding like the claim

petition before the MACT and disciplinary proceeding are quite different and

distinct. The Division Bench has held as follows:-

“The issue can be approached from another perspective also.

Proceedings pertaining to an employee can take place in three ways.

He could be departmentally dealt with. He could be prosecuted. He

could be a respondent / defendant in civil proceedings. Let us take

the case of a driver such as the appellant. If he is guilty of negligent

driving, he can be hauled up by initiating disciplinary action. The

affected parties may initiate claim proceedings before the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal and along with the management, the

driver concerned also will be a respondent. The driver can be

prosecuted for reckless and negligent driving. Even though the driver

can be subject matter of all the three proceedings, the standard of

proof applicable to them will not be one and the same. The varying

standards are: a) proof beyond reasonable doubt, b) proof on the

basis of preponderance of probabilities and c) some evidence rule. It

is well settled that in criminal cases, the standard of proof is “proof

beyond reasonable doubt”. “Preponderance of probabilities” is the

civil law standard. The former constitutes a higher threshold

compared to the latter. Some evidence rule ranks below the rigour of

preponderance of probabilities standard.

11.If the Claims Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the driver

in question had been negligent and reckless, the driver has to

Page 15 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

necessarily get the said finding vacated by filing an appeal before

the High Court. So long as the said finding is holding good, it is

binding on the management. As already mentioned, the standard

governing a civil proceeding is higher compared to a disciplinary

action. If by applying a higher standard, a person is found guilty,

disciplinary action has to follow as a consequence. This is

notwithstanding the defence that might have been taken by the

management before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Full Bench in the

aforesaid decision had explicitly held that the management is not

precluded from initiating action against its employee even if it had

taken a plea before the Tribunal that its employee is not at fault.”

36.This conclusion of the Division Bench when applied to the facts of

this case, turns it against the respondent Management.

37.In this case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a

charge memo dated 09.09.2012 that culminated in the passing of an order of

punishment against the Driver on 04.12.2013. The petition filed before the

MACT is of the year 2012. However, a counter affidavit was filed on the side

of the Management, finally before the Tribunal on 11.09.2014 after the same

having been filed on 10.02.2014 and re-presented on 03.03.2014 and

__.08.2014. Thus, in the present case, the Management had already found

its Driver guilty for the charges levelled against him and it had already

arrived at a finding that its Driver was reckless in driving the vehicle and

causing the accident. That being the conclusion arrived at by the

Management in 2013, there is no explanation provided by the respondents

for taking a contradictory stand before the Tribunal, in its counter statement

filed on 11.09.2014.

Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

38.The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by the

Management, reads as under:-

“6.This Respondent submits that the Petitioners have

deliberately suppressed the real manner in which the accident

happened and invented an entirely different and concocted

version soas to suit his claim of compensation. This Respondent

submits that the accident had not happened due to any rash and

negligent driving of the Respondent bus driver. On the other hand,

the accident had happened only due to the negligent act of the

motor-cyclist. So the Petitioner are put to strict proof of the same.

7.This Respondent submit that on 31.08.2012, this

Respondent driver was driving the vehicle bearing Regn.

No.TN57/N 1923 from Coimbatore to Madurai in a normal speed

duly observing all the traffic rules and regulation. While the bus

was proceeding near Ambikai bus-stop, one motor-cyclist along

with pillion rider who were coming from the opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner without adopting not only the traffic

rules but also the M.V. Act. The Respondent bus driver suddenly

applied break and stopped the bus. But the motor-cyclist dashed in

the front left side body of the bus in a rash and speedy manner.

The accident had happened only due to the rash and negligent act

of the motor cyclist. The bus-driver was not at all connected with

this accident. As the driver of the bus is not responsible for this

accident, this Respondent-Management is in no way liable to pay

any compensation.”

39.Thus the counter statement of the respondent states that the

accident did not happen due to any rash and negligent driving of its bus

Driver and on the other hand, it happened only due to the negligent conduct

of the rider of the two wheeler.

40.The respondents had proceeded to explain the manner of the

accident in para No.7 and it is stated that the Driver of the bus had stopped

Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

the bus by applying brake and still the rider of the two wheeler dashed on

the left side body of the bus and had thus, caused the accident. This

contradictory pleading by the Corporation is very serious and goes against

the findings in the domestic enquiry leading to the punishment. In this

regard, a reference is to be made to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (Act 59/1988). The said provision reads as under:-

“169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals. -

(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims

Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf,

follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

(2)The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil

Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the

attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and

production of documents and material objects and for such other

purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be

deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and

Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3)Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the

Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim

for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special

knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding

the inquiry.[(4) For the purpose of enforcement of its award, the

Claims Tribunal shall also have all the powers of a Civil Court in the

execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as if

the award were a decree for the payment of money passed by such

court in a civil suit.”

41.The respondent Management is conscious of the fact that they

cannot make any false pleadings before the MACT in its counter statement.

The necessity to say the truth before the Tribunal, which has all the

adornings of a civil Court, could have compelled the respondents to come out

with the truth. They are also conscious that any false statement before the

Page 18 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Tribunal would have exposed them to adverse action including criminal

proceeding. The sanctity of pleadings and the requirement to make correct

statements before the Court of law is to be strictly emphasized. This Court as

also the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again come down heavily upon the

parties, who were found guilty of suppression of material facts or found

guilty of making false statements by invoking the doctrine of suppresso veri,

suggestio falsi.

42.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment delivered in the case of

Vijay Syal and another Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in

(2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 401 has held that it is very much necessary

that the parties should not make false or knowingly inaccurate statements or

misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to

gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the Court, more particularly

when a Court is a place, where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits.

43.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had emphasized on the sanctity and

solemnity of the proceedings in Courts of law. The relevant portion is

succinctly captured in paragraph No.24, which reads as under:-

. “24.In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of

the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not

make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation

and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some

advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is

considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn

pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting

Page 19 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts

it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take

consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times

lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with

such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning

proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view

in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the

administration of justice.”

44.This requirement on the part of the Management to come out with

the truth before the Tribunal can be the only reason that prompted them to

defend their Driver before the Tribunal.

45.Now, the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of V.Syril

Sundararaj Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Thirunelveli and

others reported in 2024-2-CTC-465 = 2024-3-MLJ-22 = 2024-1-

Wr.L.R.-580 and the Division Bench in the case of M.Raja Vs. The

Managing Director, TNSTC, Madurai and another , W.A.(MD) No.647 of

2021, dated 10.03.2026, if applied to the facts of the present case, would

indicate that the Management has turned turtle upon their disciplinary

proceedings. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the said pleadings/counter

statements made by the respondent Management while considering the

correctness of the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs.

Mahadeo Krishna Naik reported in (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 321

has held as under:-

Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

“..........However, the single judge held that the Corporation

had admitted in a sworn pleading that the accident was not due to

the negligence of Mahadeo. This newly produced material, which

existed when the Labour Court made its award and the order

dismissing the writ petition was made, could not be produced by

Mahadeo, yet, it was of such a clinching nature that on the face of

this material, no court could come to the conclusion that Mahadeo

was rightly dismissed from service due to gross negligence on his

part amounting to misconduct.

....

17.To our mind, the present controversy tasks us to address

four issues. The first is whether, the Corporation is guilty of

suggestio falsi by not disclosing what it had pleaded before the

MACT and suppresio veri by suppressing the said award........

...........

23.The Latin phrases suggestio falsi and suppresio veri

embody concepts of unethical conduct of a party having serious

consequences in various fields including law.

24.According to Black’s Law Dictionary30, suggestio falsi is a

false representation or a misleading suggestion while suppresio

veri 11th Edition connotes suppression of the truth; an indirect lie,

whether by words, conduct, or artifice. It is a type of fraud.

25.That the Corporation indulged in the misadventure of

suggestio falsi and suppresio veri is incontrovertible.

..........

30...........However, the Corporation could not have at any

rate resiled from what it pleaded in its own written statement before

the MACT on a sworn affidavit and deliberately withhold the

same...........

.....

32.........The contradictory nature of the stances taken by the

Corporation before the Labour Court and the MACT reeks of the

Corporation trying to approbate and reprobate on the same issue. It

is bound to cause immense prejudice to Mahadeo if the Corporation

is allowed to reverse its stance to suit its own interests..........

.........

39.The written statement of the Corporation filed before the

MACT and its award are documents of immense significance which

were sufficient to tilt the balance in favour of Mahadeo.......... ”

Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

46. In the present case, the Management had filed a counter statement

in the MACTOP in complete contradiction to the findings arrived by it earlier

in their disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof laid down by the

division Bench in the case of M.Raja Vs. The Managing Director, TNSTC,

Madurai and another, W.A.(MD) No.647 of 2021, dated 10.03.2026 was

not the reasaon to file such a contradictory statement. Rather they have

taken a completely divergent stand in support of the original writ petitioner.

47.Thus a conclusion has to be arrived from two possibilities ie., either

the respondent Corporation is guilty of suppresso veri, suggestio falsi or

being conscious of its requirement to state the truth in its pleadings before

the Court, it filed a statement, that its Driver is not responsible for the

accident and the entire lapse is only on the part of the rider of the two

wheeler. I would rather draw the second possibility that the respondent

Corporation made a true and correct statement before the MACT in its

counter statement that its Driver/original writ petitioner, namely,

K.Perumalsamy, is not responsible for the accident, than to draw the other

conclusion that the TNSTC, a state owned corporation made a false

statement.

48.An useful reference can also be made to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Management of

Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs. General Secretary ,

WA.No.209 of 2026, dated 23.02.2026. In the said case, it has been held

as follows:-

“8.It is an admitted fact that the Management has taken a

defence that the workman was not at all negligent, and it was only

due to the poor road condition, the accident has occurred........

............

12.In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that the Corporation cannot resile from their pleading submitted

before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while initiating

disciplinary proceedings. It is further held that it would become an

unfair practice, and in the industrial adjudication, apart from

principles of natural justice, fairness in procedure is essential as a

third limb of natural justice. Therefore, from the ratio of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, it is amply clear that if the Management has taken a

particular stand before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, they are

bound by the same and they cannot resile from the stand while

taking disciplinary proceedings against workman.

13.Though, the Full Bench of this Court has answered that

notwithstanding the stand of the Management before the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal still they can initiate the disciplinary

proceedings, the same becomes no longer good law in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo Krishna Naik’s

case [cited supra]. In the instant case, the Management has taken a

specific stand that their workman was not at all negligent and the

accident had taken place only due to the poor road condition.

Therefore, by virtue of the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Mahadeo Krishna Naik’s case [cited supra], the very framing of

charge regarding the rash and negligent driving against the workman

is illegal. Therefore, we absolutely concur with the findings of the

learned Single Judge and we do not find any merits in the present

Writ Appeal.”

49.Viewed from any angle, it is apparent that the finding in the

disciplinary proceeding is per se false and it has already been given up by

the respondent Management by taking a conscious stand to support its

Page 23 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

Driver in its counter statement before the Tribunal. The subsequent

conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal on the standard of proof of

preponderance of probabilities cannot dilute the stand taken by the

respondents in respect of the writ petitioner.

50.There is one another serious infirmity in the impugned order of

punishment. Neither the punishment order dated 04.12.2013 nor the appeal

order dated 23.03.2017 and the further appeal order dated 05.05.2017

contain reasons. All these three orders are non speaking. There is no

reference to the explanations given by the delinquent employee and there is

no discussion of the explanations. There is no recording of findings as to why

those explanations offered by the employee were not acceptable. This Court

is emphatic in its finding that the impugned order cannot be sustained for

violating the essential requirement of Rule of law to record reasons.

51.In fine, this Court is of the considerate opinion that the impugned

order warrants an interference and accordingly, the same is set aside. The

Writ Petition stands allowed.

52.The respondent Management is directed to restore the benefits that

were denied under the impugned punishment order by stopping the annual

increment for a period of four years with cumulative effect against the

original writ petitioner, Mr.K.Perumalsamy. The revised benefits along with

Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

accrued arrears shall be paid to the wife of the original writ petitioner,

viz.,Vijayakumari within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. No costs.

NCC :Yes / No 19.08.2026

Index :Yes / No

Internet :Yes / No

speaking/non-speaking

mm

To

1.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,

Bypass Road,

Madurai.

2.The General Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.,

Dindigul Region,

Dindigul.

Page 25 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

N.DILIP KUMAR ,J.

mm

Pre-delivery Order made in

W.P.(MD).No.20886 of 2017

19.08.2026

Page 26 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis