WP/7926/2026 of The Management of Vs Thiru G Prabhu

W.P. No.7926 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI W.P. No.7926 of 2026 and W.M.P. No.8596 of 2026 The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Ltd, Cuddalore Region Cuddalore-607 002. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Thiru G Prabhu 2. The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour DMS Campus Teynampet Chennai-600 006. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relat ing to the Order passed in A.P.No.50 of 2022 dated 02-08-2024 on the file of the 2 nd respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T. Chandrasekaran For Respondents : R1 – No appearance Mr.R. Murthi Government Advocate for R2 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.7926 of 2026 ORDER The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the 2 nd respondent in Approval Petition No.50 of 2022 filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The case of the petitioner Corporation is that the 1 st respondent was appointed as a Driver on 05.09.2017 at the Vridhachalam Branch. At the time of appointment, the 1 st respondent had produced certain educational certificates, including an 8 th standard certificate. Subsequently, the said certificate w as sent for verification and, upon verification, the competent educational authority reported that the certificate was bogus. Based on the same, a charge memo dated 08.02.2021 was issued to the 1 st respondent alleging submission of a bogus educational certificate at the time of appointment. 3. In the meantime, a criminal case was also registered agai nst the 1 st respondent in Crime No.27 of 2021 on the file of Vridhachalam Police f or offences under Sections 182, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 4. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 18.10.2021. Therafter being unsatisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, by report dated 20.12.2021, held the charges as proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 27.12.2021 was issued, to which the 1 st respondent submitted his further explanation on 18.01.2022. Not being 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.7926 of 2026 satisfied with the same, the petitioner Corporation dismissed the 1 st respondent from service by order dated 28.02.2022. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner Corporation filed Approval Petition N o.50 of 2022 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 2 nd respondent. The said approval petition was rejected by the 2 nd respondent vide its order dated 02.08.2024 on the filmsy ground. Challenging the said rejecti on order dated 02.08.2024, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation submitted that the 1 st respondent was dismissed from service on 28.02.2022 after a full-fledged domestic enquiry in which the charges were held proved. He further su bmitted that without considering the documents marked as Exs.M1 to M10, the 2 nd respondent has erroneously came to the conclusion that enquiry proceedings were not marked to ascertain the proper conduct of the enquiry. It is the further argument that the approval petition was filed on 04.03.2022 and that any marginal delay in filing the petition was only due to administrat ive reasons, which ought not to have been held against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel would contend that the authority erred in reject ing the approval petition on technical grounds without considering the merits of the misconduct, especially when the charge of submitting a bogus certific ate is grave in nature. He also submitted that the rejection of the appr oval petition on 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.7926 of 2026 the ground of delay is unsustainable, as the delay, if any, was properly explained and not wilful. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for granting approval to the dismissal order. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the name of the 1 st respondent was printed in the cause list, today, there was no repre sentation on behalf of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on the basis of the available records. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2 nd respondent submitted that it is necessary to file enquiry proceedings but the petitioner failed to produce the same before the 2 nd respondent and that there was a delay, which is non-est in law. He further submitted that the allegations le velled against the 1st respondent was that the 1 st respondent has submitted educational certificates of bogus in nature and thereby the petitioner Corporation had dismissed him from service, for which, proper supporting papers have not been filed before the 2nd respondent. In the light of the above, he prayed for issuance of appropri ate directions. 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent and perused the records. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.7926 of 2026 11. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent was appointed as a Driver in the year 2017 and had submitted certificates at the time of appoi ntment. However, the petitioner Corporation has not raised any issue regarding the certificates for a considerable period. The primary allegation a gainst the 1 st respondent is that the 8 th standard certificate submitted by him was bogus. Though it is stated that the certificate was verified through t he educational authorities, no material evidence or report of the competent authority has been produced either before the Enquiry Officer or before the approval authori ty to substantiate the said claim. 12. This Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any evidence establishing that the certificate is bogus, the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained and the consequential order of dismissal is seems to be perverse. 13. Further, as rightly held by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2 nd respondent, the approval petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act ought to have been filed simultaneously w ith the order of dismissal. In the present case, there is no proper explanati on for the delay in filing the approval petition. Even in the writ petition, no specific grounds have been raised explaining such delay, though while arguing the ca se, 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.7926 of 2026 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay is due to administrative reasons. 14. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the 2 nd respondent warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entert ain the claim of the petitioner and the same is negatived. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the 1st respondent into service without back wages. The 1st respondent shall, however, be entitled to continuity of service and a ll other attendant benefits. 16. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition sta nds disposed of. No costs. 08.04.2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No vsi2 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.7926 of 2026 M. DHANDAPANI, J. vsi2 To The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour DMS Campus Teynampet Chennai-600 006. W.P. No.7926 of 2026 and W.M.P. No.8596 of 2026 08.04.2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis