The Madras High Court on Wednesday ordered a vigilance department probe into allegations that one Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus was shown in records as three different buses operating on the same route [Murugesan Vs Additional Chief Secretary].

Justice B Pugalendhi of the Madurai Bench passed the order on a plea raising allegations that some buses are not being operated on approved routes, and that fake records were created to project their operation so that money for tickets, diesal, salary and other expenses could be misappropriated.

The Court noted that the State's Transport Corporation itself had admitted that such fake documents were created in relation to Bus No. TN-57-N-2084, which plies from Vedasandur to Trichy, for July 16, 2022.

The Court said that the allegations were serious and could not have been closed merely by imposing minor punishment on two lower-level employees suspected of being involved in the scam.

“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," it observed.

Justice Pugalendhi further criticised the vigilance department for merely forwarding a complaint filed by the petitioner in the matter to the transport department instead of conducting an enquiry.

“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," the Court went on other opine.

The Court also made strong observations on the functioning of the vigilance department itself.

“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 lamented.

The writ petition was filed by S Murugesan, a dismissed employee of the Transport Corporation. He alleged that buses were not being operated on approved routes, but records were created as though they had been run. This, he said, caused huge losses to the Corporation.

Murugesan claimed that conductors were compelled by higher officials to issue three different sets of tickets on a single route to create records as if three buses had operated. He submitted that this enabled misappropriation of diesel expenses, employee salaries and maintenance charges.

The Transport Corporation, in its counter affidavit, admitted that an audit inspection had found irregularities in respect of the Vedasandur-Trichy route. It said that computer slip tickets for different route numbers had been issued in respect of the same bus.

The Corporation said that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Branch Manager B Karthick Raja and Junior Assistant P Sivaraj. Both were eventually punished with the stoppage of increment for one year.

However, the High Court found this action insufficient.

The Court said the counter affidavit did not reveal whether the alleged fraud was confined to one route alone or whether similar irregularities had taken place on other routes.

It also said there was no material to show whether the role of the Managing Director had been examined.

“This Court is also having a doubt as to whether such a fraud could have been played without the involvement of the higher officials," the Court pointed out.

The Corporation had argued that the petitioner had no locus standi to file a petition in the matter as he was a dismissed employee and a third party.

The Court rejected this objection as well in the facts of the case, holding that the allegations were serious and concerned fraud in a public corporation.

It directed the vigilance department to look into the complaint and take appropriate action if irregularities are found.

The department was directed to file a status report by September 3, 2026.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate P Balamurugan.

Special Government Pleader C Venkatesh Kumar appeared for the State authorities.

Standing Counsel SC Herold Singh appeared for the Transport Corporation and its officials.

Advocate D Sivaraman assisted the Court as amicus curiae.

[Read Order]