Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is directed against the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 18.2.2003 by the 2nd respondent proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. The petitioner was employed as a Driver under the 2nd respondent Transport Corporation in the year 1989. It appears that when he was driving the bus belong to the Transport Corporation on 23.4.2002, while the bus was nearing Valluvar Kottam, there was a traffic congestion due to the reason that the then Mayor of the Madras Corporation was on hunger strike. It is seen that due to the traffic congestion, the movement of the vehicles were restrained and the Conductor of the said bus, namely Mr.Haniff has got down from the bus and greeted the Mayor. However, the charges were framed against both the said Conductor as well as the petitioner, who is the Driver to the effect that they have stopped the transport bus on the road to greet the Mayor, who was undergoing fast. After the enquiry was conducted, a second show cause notice came to be issued proposing to impose punishment of removal from service. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents Transport Corporation Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan would submit that the said Conductor has also approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.9182 of 2003. He was subsequently reinstated into service by the proceedings of the respondent Corporation, retired from service and received all the benefits due to him. In view of the said submission made by both parties, the Writ Petition filed by the Conductor came to be dismissed as infructuous. 5. In this Writ Petition filed by the Driver, a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the incident, when the matter was brought to the floor of the assembly, the Chief Minister has made a statement that it was only the Conductor, who has greeted the Mayor and there was no reference about the petitioner at all even by the Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly. While so, especially in the circumstances that the Conductor who is said to have greeted the Mayor has been reinstated in service, there is absolutely no reason to proceed against the petitioner, who has admittedly not involved in the said charge as seen in the statement made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner taking note of the fact that the Conductor has been reinstated as admitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation. I am of the considered view that no useful purpose will be served in proceeding against the petitioner, who is the Driver against whom on the face of it, there is no enforceable charge. 6. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner stands set aside. It is stated that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner continues to work as a Driver of the Transport Corporation, however, he has not been granted the due promotion and other monetary benefits to which he is entitled in the normal course. It is made clear that inasmuch as the show cause notice stands set aside by this order, it is for the 2nd respondent to confer all the monetary and other benefits due to the petitioner in the manner known to law. No costs.