JUDGMENT : S.S.SUNDAR, J. PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P(MD).No.24761 of 2016 dated 23.12.2016. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P(MD).No.24761 of 2016 by this Court on 23.12.2016. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:- The appellant is a driver of the respondent Transport Corporation. On 13.03.2013, he was on duty along with the conductor, by name, A.Mariraja in the bus engaged in Cumbum-Senkottai Route. During that time, there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and another conductor, namely, Ramasamy, who belongs to different Branch of the State Transport Corporation. On the very same day, when the bus reached Rajapalayam bus stop, he noticed air leaking in one of the front wheels of the bus. It is the petitioner's case that he informed Rajapalayam Branch Manager to get Spare Tyre around 08.45 p.m. At that time, the Assistant Engineer of Rajapalayam Branch hold him to wait for another hour as there was no one available. When he was searching for Jacky to prevent further damage to Tyre, it is stated that the said Ramasamy, who had earlier quarreled with the appellant, physically assaulted the appellant in his back and scolded in filthy language. This led to a complaint and the First Information Report was registered against the said person at the instance of the appellant. Thereafter, the said Ramasamy tendered apology to the appellant admitting his guilt. While so, a charge memo was issued to the appellant on 12.04.2013 which contains the following charges:- ----OTHER LANGUAGE---- 3. From the charge memo itself, it is seen that the charges are relating to the incident dated 13.03.2013. Since the appellant has submitted his explanation denying the charges, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges are proved. After issuing second show cause notice and getting further explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Labour Officer alleging false charges against him. He was directed to approach the Tribunal under Section 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also declined to entertain as the petitioner challenged only the punishment of stoppage of increment. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Labour Officer alleging false charges against him. He was directed to approach the Tribunal under Section 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also declined to entertain as the petitioner challenged only the punishment of stoppage of increment. A writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Labour Officer and the Labour Court was also dismissed on 22.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings, dated 17.11.2014 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court holding that the appellant, who is a workman, is entitled to raise an Industrial Dispute through his Union. The operative portion of the order dismissing the writ petition, reads as under:- “5. Since the petitioner is a workman, he is entitled to raise industrial dispute through his union and in case, an industrial dispute is raised, it is open to the Conciliation Officer to take up the matter, conciliate and submit a report and in case of reference to the Government, the Industrial Adjudicator is expected to take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with law.” 4. The appellant, thereafter, filed a review application with the delay of 151 days. However, the said review application itself was dismissed at at the SR stage on merits. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Bench in the writ petition, the present Writ Appeal has been filed. 5. The appellant appeared in person and alleged malice in law and described the charges as false and vindictive. He referred to the charge memo and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. It is not in dispute that the incident as narrated by the appellant happened on 13.03.2013. The appellant, in fact, has given a complaint against the said Ramasamy and he has given proper explanation denying the charges as stated in the charge memo. Even though the appellant has informed about the air leaking in one of the front wheels of the bus to the respondents Transport Corporation, it is stated that the concerned Assistant Engineer could not respond due to non-availability of supporting ground staff. The fact that the petitioner reported for change of Tyre is admitted. He gave valid explanation about the incident. The fact that the petitioner reported for change of Tyre is admitted. He gave valid explanation about the incident. This was projected by the appellant before the Disciplinary Authority, Enquiry Officer and this Court. When the explanations were offered by the appellant in response to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority has to consider the explanations with reference to the facts recorded. This Court is unable to sustain the reasons stated by the respondent to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. This Court has also pointed out that the fairness in action is expected from the instrumentalities of the State while dealing with workman. Stating that no new facts are stated by the petitioner while giving explanation to the second show cause notice, the proposed punishment was confirmed. The order reads as follow:- ----OTHER LANGUAGE--- 6. After dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of alternative remedy by the Writ Court, the appellant came forward by way of a review. The Review was also dismissed without adverting to the previous round. When the appellant has come out with the specific case that he is not a member of any registered Union, the respondent Transport Corporation has not denied the factual contention of the appellant before this Court. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers the power of judicial review wherever there is no alternative remedy available to the citizen. The punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect is an order affecting the appellant adversely. The stoppage of increment with cumulative effect will affect the service conditions of the appellant. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition to seek alternative remedy of approaching the Labour Court. The petitioner has already exhausted such remedy. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the case on merits, this Court is unable to sustain the order of punishment as appropriate. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the case on merits, this Court is unable to sustain the order of punishment as appropriate. In the absence of any cogent material to establish the charges, the order of punishment without considering the facts as narrated by the appellant before the Disciplinary Authority, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefits. With regard to other reliefs, the prayers are rejected. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.