2026:MHC:1860WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 25.02.2026

DELIVERED ON : 03.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

S.Murugesan : Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

St. Fort George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Transport Department,

St. Fort George,

Chennai – 600 009.

3.The Vigilance Commissioner,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.

4.The Director,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption,

293, MKN Road, Alandur,

Chennai – 600 016.

1/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

5.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Bye Pass Road,

Madurai – 625 010.

6.The Branch Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Dindigul Road,

Vedasanthur,

Dindigul District. : Respondents

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

seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4

to take appropriate action as against the respondents 5 & 6 in accordance

with law by considering the petitioner's representation dated 29.08.2022

within a stipulated time limit.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.Balamurugan

For Respondents: Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar,

Special Government Pleader

for R.1 to R.4

Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,

Standing Counsel for R.5, R.6

*****

2/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

ORDER

The petitioner, a dismissed employee of the respondent Transport

Corporation, has lodged a complaint as against the Managing Director of

the Transport Corporation and the Branch Manager to the Vigilance

Department and to the Government that some buses are not operated on

the approved routes by the respondent Corporation, however, records

have been created as if the buses were operated and thereby, huge losses

were caused to the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has provided

an example of Bus No.TN-57-N-2084 plying on the Dindigul – Trichy

route wherein three different sets of tickets were issued to the

passengers on 16.07.2022. By issuing the tickets, the management has

created fake entries as if other buses were operated on the same route

and the diesel expenses, salary of employees and maintenance charges

were misappropriated. The petitioner claims that due to compulsion

from the higher officials, the conductors were made to issue three

different sets of tickets on a single route to create records as if three

buses were operated on the route. With this grievance, the petitioner

lodged a representation on 29.08.2022 and since no action was taken on

3/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

the same, he has approached this Court seeking directions to take action

on his complaint.

2.In response to this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed

by the fifth respondent admitting a portion of the allegations that

pursuant to a report of the Audit Department dated 20.07.2022, it was

found that three different ticket slips were issued on Bus No.TN-57-

N-2084 plying from Vedasandur to Trichy on 16.07.2022 and fake

records were created as if three buses were operated on the same route.

It is also stated in the counter affidavit that disciplinary proceedings

were initiated against the Branch Manager, one B.Karthick Raja and

Junior Assistant, one P.Sivaraj for the same. The relevant portions of the

counter affidavit are extracted as under:

“7.I deny the averments contained in para 6 of the affidavit, it

is submitted that the amount collected on 16-07-2022 in respect of

Vedasandur Branch was deposited in the corporation account on

16-07-2022. However, the same was deposited on 17-07-2022.

Therefore, on 18-07-2022, audit inspection was made and in the

inspection it is found that on 16-07-2022 a bus bearing registration

No.TN57 N2084 plyed from Vedachandur to Trichy in which the

4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

computer slip tickets were issued for the route No.515A, 601B and

680A the ticket computer slip No. 0231132 series for route No.601

which is being used in the city buses. As such, fake documents were

created as if 3 buses were operated by operating one bus that is the

bus bearing Reg. No.TN57 N2084. I state on 20.07.2022 a report was

submitted by the Audit Department. In pursuant to the same, the

General Manager, Dindigul, on 22-08-2022 issued charge memo to

the Branch Manager, B.Karthick Raja and also another charge memo

dated 22-08-2022 was issued to P.Sivaraj, Junior Assistant imputing

5 charges. Based on the audit report, the General Manager issued

enquiry notice to the Branch Manager and Junior Assistant who was

doing traffic duty alotting buses to appear on 20-07-2023 for

enquiry.”

3.However, the respondent Corporation has denied that the fifth

respondent Managing Director had any role to play in the alleged scam.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent

Corporation that the petitioner, a dismissed employee / a third party is

not having any locus to maintain this writ petition and he has filed this

complaint out of personal vengeance, as he was dismissed from service.

Hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

4.Considering the rival submissions and the judgments already

rendered regarding the issue of maintainability of writ petitions filed by

third parties and also considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, this Court requested Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Counsel to assist

the Court as Amicus.

5.It is submitted by the learned Amicus that a writ petition to

initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee cannot be

maintained by a third party, as it is a matter between the employer and

employee. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot claim to be an

aggrieved person and that he has not placed any materials

substantiating his allegations and hence, this writ petition is not

maintainable. The learned Amicus has relied on the following judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the same:-

(i) Joshbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji

Bashir Ahamed and Others [1975 (1) SCC 671];

(ii) Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

[1976 (3) SCC 784];

(iii) Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunderlal Jain and

Another [2008 (2) SCC 280]; and

(iv) Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India [2000 (9) SCC 313].

6.This Court considered the submissions made by the respective

parties and also perused the materials.

7.The petitioner claims to be a member of a trade union and

erstwhile employee of the respondent Corporation. He has lodged a

complaint in August 2022 alleging that buses are not being operated on

the approved routes and grave irregularity is being committed resulting

in financial loss to the respondent Corporation. He has also provided an

example of Bus No.TN-57-N-2084 plying on the Vedasandur – Trichy

route which issued three different sets of tickets on 16.07.2022. This

allegation has been admitted by the respondent Corporation in their

counter affidavit that three different sets of tickets were issued on Bus

No.TN-57-N-2084 on 16.07.2022. It also appears that the Branch Manager

7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

and a Junior Assistant were issued with a charge memo on 22.08.2022

and pursuant to an enquiry, punishment of stoppage of increment for a

period of one year was imposed on them by order dated 18.08.2023.

8.The allegations raised by the petitioner are serious in nature.

Admittedly, three different sets of tickets were issued for Route Nos.

515A, 601B and 680A to the passengers travelling in Route No.601 and

fake records were created as if three buses were plied on the same route

and the diesel expenses and salary amount has been misappropriated.

However, the respondent Corporation has closed the issue by imposing

a minor punishment on the Branch Manager and a Junior Assistant,

which is not proper.

9.The position of law with regard to writ petitions filed by third

parties seeking directions to take action on complaints relating to service

issue has been decided in various cases commencing from Joshbhai's

case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that strangers had

no locus standi to file writ petitions.

8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

10.This Court has also taken a similar stand in Shanmugam v.

State of Tamil Nadu [WP(MD) No.6061 of 2022 dated 02.12.2024],

wherein it was held that third parties cannot invoke the jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of

mandamus to direct disciplinary proceedings.

11.In this case, a serious allegation has been made that buses are

not being operated on the approved routes and fake records were

created as if three different sets of tickets were issued on a bus plying on

a single route. This allegation has also been admitted by the respondent

Corporation and the Branch Manager and a Junior Assistant were held

responsible for the above charges. The allegation is serious in nature and

the Vigilance Department has not conducted any enquiry on this

complaint of the petitioner. Instead, the Vigilance Department

forwarded the complaint to the Additional Chief Secretary to

Government, Transport Department and no action has been taken on the

same thereafter. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent

9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

Corporation does not reveal whether this fraud has been played in that

particular route alone or even on the other routes and whether the role of

the Managing Director was examined by the respondent Corporation.

This Court is also having a doubt as to whether such a fraud could have

been played without the involvement of the higher officials. However,

the fourth respondent Vigilance Department, which ought to have

examined the same, has simply forwarded the complaint to the

respondent Corporation. It also appears that the disciplinary

proceedings were initiated to give a closure to this issue by imposing a

minor punishment on two employees rather than finding out the truth.

12.It is regrettable to note that the Vigilance Department, which is

expected to monitor 14 lakh government employees, is functioning only

for namesake with 100 employees. They are filing 100 cases per year to

show that they are functioning. Almost all the complaints received by

the Vigilance Department are forwarded to the respective Heads of

Departments and they are taking no action on such complaints or taking

some action for namesake and closing the issue.

10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

13.In the event any public official fails to perform their

constitutional / statutory / public duty, this Court has the discretion to

issue a writ of mandamus, which is a prerogative writ issued to compel

the performance of such duties. This discretion is governed by

consideration of public policy, public interest and public good.

Certainly, both the Vigilance Department and the respondent

Corporation have a legal duty to conduct an enquiry when serious

allegations are bought to their notice, which they have not satisfactorily

done so.

14.Before that, the issue of whether the petitioner can be

considered to be an aggrieved person has to be considered in the present

case. In Joshbhai Motibhai Desai's case (supra), a three Judge Bench of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question as to who can be

considered as a "person aggrieved" in order to have the locus to invoke

the jurisdiction of a writ court and held as under:

“37. It will be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply

11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of

these categories: (i) "person aggrieved"; (ii) "stranger"; (iii)

busybody or meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last category are

easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two

categories. Such persons interfere in things which do not concern

them. They masquerade as crusaders for justice. They pretend to act

in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the

public or even of their own to protect. They indulge in the pastime of

meddling with the judicial process either by force of habit or from

improper motives. Often, they are actuated by a desire to win

notoriety or cheap popularity; while the ulterior intent of some

applicants in this category, may be no more than spoking the wheels

of administration. The High Court should do well to reject the

applications of such busybodies at the threshold.

38. The distinction between the first and second categories of

applicants, though real, is not always well-demarcated. The first

category has, as it were, two concentric zones; a solid central zone of

certainty, and a grey outer circle of lessening certainty in a sliding

centrifugal scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of uncertainty.

Applicants falling within the central zone are those whose legal rights

have been infringed. Such applicants undoubtedly stand in the

category of "persons aggrieved". In the grey outer circle the bounds

which separate the first category from the second, intermix, interfuse

and overlap increasingly in a centrifugal direction. All persons in

12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

this outer zone may not be "persons aggrieved".

39. To distinguish such applicants from "strangers", among

them, some broad tests may be deduced from the conspectus made

above. These tests are not absolute and ultimate. Their efficacy varies

according to the circumstances of the case, including the statutory

context in which the matter falls to be considered. These are: Whether

the applicant is a person whose legal right has been infringed? Has he

suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense, that his interest,

recognised by law, has been prejudicially and directly affected by the

act or omission of the authority, complained of? Is he a person who

has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has

been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or

wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to

something?

Has he a special and substantial grievance of his own beyond

some grievance or inconvenience suffered by him in common with the

rest of the public? Was he entitled to object and be heard by the

authority before it took the impugned action? If so, was he

prejudicially affected in the exercise of that right by the act of

usurpation of jurisdiction on the part of the authority? Is the statute,

in the context of which the scope of the words "person aggrieved" is

being considered, a social welfare measure designed to lay down

ethical or professional standards of conduct for the community? Or is

it a statute dealing with private rights of particular individuals?”

13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

15.Further, in Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India [2000 (9) SCC 313],

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a stranger cannot challenge

any aspect of departmental proceedings and the relevant portions are

extracted as under:

“9. But a mere busy-body who has no. interest cannot invoke

the jurisdiction of the court. In respect of departmental proceedings

which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government

against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected

with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the

departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the

High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee

is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for

"misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a

"domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity

of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially

a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger,

much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest

in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not

involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are

entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with

those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of

Court.”

14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

16.As per the above decisions, a mere busybody or stranger with

no interest in the matter cannot be allowed to invoke the writ

jurisdiction. This ensures that persons with improper motives or those

seeking cheap publicity do not misuse the judicial process. However, it

has also been clarified that the locus standi of a person to file a writ

petition depends on the circumstances of the case and whether they can

considered to be an aggrieved person. Therefore, it is relevant to

consider the meaning of the term “Aggrieved”.

17.(i) As per Sumeet Malik's Law Lexicon, the plain and dictionary

meaning of the term “aggrieved” means hurt, angry, upset, wronged,

maltreated, persecuted, victimised, etc.

(ii) As per Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, “aggrieved

person” is defined to mean “subjected to ill-treatment, feeling an injury

or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's

rights”.

(iii) As per Black's Law Dictionary, an aggrieved person is

defined as: “One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of,

15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected by a

decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be established or

divested. The word aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, a denial

of some personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a

party of a burden or obligation.”

18.Further, the term “aggrieved person” is also used in many

statutes and its meaning has to be determined based on the context, but

it can generally be defined as under:

(i)As per Summet Malik's Law Lexicon, the term “person aggrieved”

would mean a person who had suffered legal injury or one who has been

unjustly deprived or denied of something, which he would be interested

to obtain in the usual course or similar benefits or advantage or results in

the wrongful affectation oh his title to compensation.

(ii)The Privy Council in Attorney General of the Gambia v. Peirra

Sarr N'Jie [(1961) 2 All ER 504] held that “the word 'person aggrieved' is

of wide import and should not be subjected to restrictive interpretation.

16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in

things which do not concern him; but they do include a person who has

a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially

affect his interests.” This definition was also subsequently followed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

[1977 (1) SCC 155].

(iii)In Re Sidebotham, exparte Sidebotham [(1880) 14 ChD 458], the

term “aggrieved person” was defined as “A person who is materially

and adversely affected by the decision by which he has been denied or

deprived of something to which he is legally entitled or the decision has

imposed a legal burden on him or that the adverse impact of the decision

on his interests is so direct that he must be regarded as falling within the

statutory category of persons aggrieved by it.”

19.The petitioner is the secretary of a trade union and was

dismissed from service of the respondent Corporation on 22.05.2023.

Admittedly, he was an employee of the respondent Corporation. Every

17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

employee is a part of the institution in which they are employed. It is not

just the amount of money misappropriated, but the reputation of the

institution is also involved in this issue. Every employee is having a right

to protect the reputation of the institution in which they are employed

and when the reputation of their institution is damaged by such

allegations, then the employee is affected and can be considered to be an

aggrieved person.

20.No doubt, the public officials have to be protected from

frivolous allegations and third parties cannot be allowed to misuse the

judicial process. However, the department has a legal duty to conduct an

enquiry when serious allegations are raised against its officials and it

cannot be allowed to protect erring officials by sitting on such

complaints and taking no action on them.

21.In this case, the petitioner has lodged a complaint raising

serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation in the respondent

Corporation and that the Managing Director of the respondent

18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

Corporation was involved in the same. It is not the case that the

petitioner has raised a personal dispute. Further, the allegation is also

admitted by the respondent Corporation, however, the issue was closed

by conducting disciplinary proceedings against some low level

employees.

22.Considering the serious nature of allegations, this Court is of the

view that the Vigilance Department ought to have conducted an enquiry

as to whether such fraud was prevalent on other bus routes and whether

the fifth respondent Managing Director was involved in the same.

However, there is a failure on the part of the respondent corporation and

the Vigilance Department in not looking into the allegations raised by

the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be considered to

be a third party and left remediless.

23.In view of the foregoing observations and discussions, this writ

petition is disposed with a direction to the fourth respondent / Vigilance

Department to look into the complaint of the petitioner and take

19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

appropriate action, if any irregularities are discovered. The Vigilance

Department shall file a status report regarding the action taken by them

before this Court by 03.09.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.

This Court places on record its appreciation to Mr.D.Sivaraman,

learned Counsel, who has ably assisted the Court in this case as an

Amicus.

Internet: Yes 03.06.2026

gk

To

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,

St. Fort George,

Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Transport Department,

St. Fort George,

Chennai – 600 009.

3.The Vigilance Commissioner,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.

20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

4.The Director,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption,

293, MKN Road, Alandur,

Chennai – 600 016.

5.The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Bye Pass Road,

Madurai – 625 010.

6.The Branch Manager,

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Dindigul Road,

Vedasanthur,

Dindigul District.

21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

gk

WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023

03.06.2026

22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis