Full Judgment Text
2026:MHC:1860
WP(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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )
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 ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2026 03:34:23 pm )