Only eye-witnesses can prove charges of negligent driving, says Madras HC judge Ravichandrababu by Sekar Reporter · January 19, 2020 Only eye-witnesses can prove charges of negligent driving, says Madras HC The court was hearing a case filed by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against a 2013 labour court ruling that came in favour of a wrongly terminated TNSTC employee. IMAGE FOR REPRESENTATION NEWS COURT SUNDAY, JANUARY 19, 2020 – 08:02 PTI Follow @ The Madras High Court has said only eye-witnesses can prove charges of rash and negligent driving and without any such witnesses, such charge would not hold good in Court. Justice K Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against the order of a labour court in November, 2013, directing it to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to kin of a driver, who was wrongly terminated by the corporation. The late G Gopal was working as a driver for the corporation’s Villupuram division and on February 14, 1999 the vehicle driven by him met with an accident in which three people died. Gopal had claimed that the accident was not due to his negligence or rash driving and that the vehicle was not properly maintained by the corporation. However, after framing charges, the management conducted a domestic inquiry and terminated the services of Gopal with effect from August 16, 1999. Aggrieved, Gopal moved the labour court challenging his dismissal. As Gopal died during the pendency of the dispute, the labour court impleaded his wife and children in the case. After considering the fact that in the domestic inquiry, no eye-witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge levelled against Gopal, the labour directed the corporation to pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to his kin. Challenging the same, TNSTC moved the present appeal. Rejecting the appeal, Justice Ravichandrabaabu said, “Needless to say that the right persons to speak about the accident are the eye-witnesses to the same. Only those persons will be in a position to speak as to whether the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.” The judge further said admittedly, no such eye-witness was examined in this case, adding the management, while conducting the independent domestic inquiry, is not justified in simply relying on the FIR alone, without examining the eye witnesses. He said therefore the labour court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the deceased from the service is not just and proper.
Judge m v Muralidaran ordered Writ of Quo Warranto. In the result, a) The Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2018 is allowed. b) This Court issued quo-warranto by declaring the promotion of the 5th respondent to the post of Joint Director SCERT dated 28.3.2014 is unconstitutional. [3/2, 16:44] Sekarreporter 1: P a g e | 28 W.P.(C) No. 1210 of 2018 c) The Respondents No. 1 to 4 are hereby directing to remove the 5th respondent from the post of Joint Director SCERT immediately. d) No cost. JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil March 2, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published March 2, 2020
Quashed order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGHCrl.O.P.Nos.394 & 1535 of 2022 andCrl.M.P.Nos.133 & 615 of 2022In Crl.O.P.No.394 of 2022:-Harsh Charandas MariwalaManaging Director of M/s.Kaya Ltd.,Unit: Kaya Skin Clinic,AC-15, First Floor, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. andGala no.8E, City Link Warehousing, Thane – 421 302.… PetitionerVs.Tamil Nadu State rep. byN.Vijayananth, Drugs Inspector,Anna Nagar Range, February 26, 2024 by Sekar Reporter · Published February 26, 2024