Madras High Court Criticises Vigilance Department For Not Probing Allegations Of TNSTC Scam

While doing so, Justice B Pugalendhi criticised the Vigilance Department for not probing the matter earlier despite receiving complaints and merely forwarding the same to the Additional Chief Secretary. The court added that the department should have conducted a probe to find out whether such fraud was being conducted on other bus routes also.

“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,” the court said.

The court also observed that the department, which was expected to monitor 14 lakh government employees, was functioning for namesake and filing 100 cases per year just to show that they are functioning.

“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,” the court said.

The court was hearing a writ petition filed by S Murugesan, a dismissed employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation seeking directions to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Secretary to Government (Transport Department), Vigilance Commissioner (Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department) and the Director (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) to take action against the Managing Director and the Branch Manager of the TNSTC.

The petitioner had argued that some buses were not being operated on the approved route by the Corporation. The petitioner also gave an example of how a bus plying on the Dindigul-Trichy route had issued 3 different sets of tickets to passengers on July 16, 2022, to create fake entries as if other buses were operating on the same route and by doing so, the diesel expenses, salary of employees and maintenance charges were misappropriated.

The petitioner argued that due to pressure from the higher officials, the conductors were being forced to issue extra tickets and create fake records. He also submitted that though he lodged a complaint, no action had been taken and thus he had approached the court.

The respondents admitted that 3 sets of tickets were issued to the passengers on the said date. It was submitted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Branch Manager and Junior Assistant in connection with the same. However, the Corporation denied the involvement of the Managing Director and argued that he did not have any role to play in the alleged scam.

The Corporation also questioned the locus of the petitioner to file the case and argued that the same was done out of personal vengeance since he was dismissed from service. It was argued that a dismissed employee or third party does not have locus to maintain the petition.

The court noted that the petitioner is the secretary of a trade union and was an employee of the Corporation. The court observed that every employee who is part of the institution has a right to protect the reputation of the institution, which would get seriously affected in case of such a scam. The court added that if the institution's reputation is damaged, it would affect the employee also and thus it would make him an aggrieved person, who will have locus to maintain a plea.

“Every 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,” the court said.

Noting that the allegation with respect to issuing extra tickets and creating fake records was admitted by the corporation, the court asked the Vigilance Department to probe into the matter and file status report regarding the action taken by them by September 3, 2026.s

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Balamurugan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader, Mr. S. C. Herold Singh, Standing Counsel

Case Title: S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238

Case No: WP(MD)No.16810 of 2023