23 years after dismissal, government bus driver wins relief at age 65

CHENNAI: Twenty three years have passed since R Palaniappan, 65, was

dismissed

from his service as a government bus driver following a

departmental inquiry

after a bus driven by him got involved in a fatal accident near Avinashi in Tiruppur district. However, an industrial tribunal in the city recently dismissed a petition by his employer, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (

TNSTC

) - Salem division, seeking approval for Palaniappan’s dismissal.

While Palaniappan is past his retirement age now, the order of the industrial tribunal means that Palaniappan is now eligible for all the monetary benefits of that of a permanent employee with the state transport corporation.

Palaniappan has benefited from provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act. “The management ought to seek approval from a concerned authority to dismiss a workman according to section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. This is to ensure that managements do not take any vindictive action on their employees,” advocate J Saravana Vel, counsel for Palaniappan told TOI.

While the transport corporation might appeal against the tribunal’s order at a higher court, this is a relief for the driver, who was also acquitted by the judicial magistrate in the criminal case for the fatal accident.

On May 7, 1994, Palaniappan, while driving a bus from Coimbatore to Salem, had collided with an Ambassador car near Nambiyur road. Three passengers in the car were killed in the accident. Avinashi police chargesheeted him the same month, following which his employer temporarily suspended him for two weeks, ordering a departmental inquiry. While the criminal case was pending in a magistrate court, he was dismissed from service on June 21, 1995 after the departmental inquiry.

When Palaniappan was dismissed in 1995, TNSTC-Salem was known as the Anna Transport Corporation, and the car involved had TAP 2172 registration, a series done away with decades ago.

The driver’s counsel argued that the inquiry was defective and that the inquiry officer recorded a statement wrongly. “When Palaniappan said he saw the car 20 meters away, the officer recorded it as 2km away. Based on this wrong statement, the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the driver was negligent,” the counsel argued.

In his order, A Kanthakumar, presiding officer of Industrial Tribunal, stated that since the driver was tried in a criminal case and also questioned during departmental proceedings for the same set of charges, but was acquitted by a criminal court, he cannot be found guilty in the departmental inquiry.

Noting that the departmental inquiry was vitiated, the approval sought by the management for the dismissal order lacks legal evidence, suffers perversity and thereby attracts the victimisation and unfair labour practice, the tribunal said.


Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Don't miss daily games like Crossword, Sudoku, and Mini Crossword.