M.Muniyase v. The General Manager

ORDER The petitioner is a Driver. He was issued with a charge memo on

24.03.2026 that he assaulted the conductor and damaged the glass doors in the office. Therefore, the petitioner was also placed under suspension on 24.03.2026. The suspension order has been revoked on 17.04.2026. However he has not been provided with any employment nearly for the past four months, even though the suspension was revoked. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide him employment based on his representation dated 07.07.2026.

2.The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner on 16.03.2026 in an inebriated condition has created problem in the office during working hours, assaulted the conductor and damaged the glass doors of the office. Therefore, he was placed under suspension on 24.03.2026 and a charge memo was also issued to him. However, the suspension has been revoked on 17.04.2026 with a direction to the petitioner to take treatment in the rehabilitation centre for a period of one week. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has not taken treatment as directed by them.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing trial in connection with an accident and therefore, he could not stay in the rehabilitation centre.

4.This Court has considered the rival submissions made.

5.The petitioner has been placed under suspension on 24.03.2026. The petitioner has created problem under the influence of alcohol. However, the order of suspension has been revoked on 17.04.2026 with a direction to the petitioner to take treatment in a rehabilitation centre. The petitioner has not taken treatment. Therefore, the petitioner has not been provided with employment. When the suspension order has been revoked, the petitioner cannot be kept without providing any employment. Pending the charge memo the petitioner can be placed under suspension and be paid subsistence allowance or otherwise, he can be provided employment.

6.In view of the above, the respondents are directed to provide employment to the petitioner immediately, or they shall pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner till the enquiry contemplated vide the charge memo is concluded.

7.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

11.08.2026 DSK To The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. B.PUGALENDHI.J., DSK

11.08.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI M.Muniyase ...Petitioner Vs The General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent forthwith to provide the petitioners employment in the Respondents corporation, based on the representation of the petitioner on 07.07.2026, within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.P.F.Ferlin Castro