THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25432 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner herein is a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). He filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari to set aside the award dated 27.08.2001 passed in I.D.No.64/98 by the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, insofar as it went against him and he is seeking the relief of back wages and continuity of service and attendant benefits. 2. At the relevant time when the petitioner was working in the Narayankhed depot of APSRTC, a disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on two charges which reads as follows. “1. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ-1859 on 5.6.92 in rash and negligent manner while you were performing 6.30 hours, Bidar-Dappoor service, resulting capsized of the vehicle which fell into a side by valley, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ:1859 on 5.6.92 with lack of anticipation due to which the bus toppled down and rested on the roof near Malkapur village, resulting injuries to 31 passengers out of whom 3 passengers got fracture and admitted in the hospital of Bidar, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xix-a) and (xiii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963.” 3. After holding an enquiry into the above two charges, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service by its order dated 25.07.1994. That was confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. Thereafter the petitioner raised industrial dispute i.e. I.D.No.64/98. The Labour Court after considering the matter by its award dated 27.08.2001 held that charge No.1 was not proved but concluded that charge No.2 was proved and confirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority regarding the same. Regarding punishment, the Labour Court held that removal from service was disproportionately high and having regard to the nature of charge No.2 it directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh entrant. The tribunal however made it clear that petitioner was not to be given back wages though appointment as a new entrant would result in denial of back wages. It is not necessary to consider the said aspect. 4. What should be noted is that the tribunal expressly found that the charge relating to rashness or negligence was not proved. In fact the charge consisted of driving the bus in a slope in such a manner that the bus went off the road and turned turtle. The explanation of the petitioner was that at that time a motor cyclist came in front of the bus and to avoid hitting him he swerved the bus to his right of the road and that resulted in the accident as at that time there was rain with strong winds blowing there and also poor visibility. The tribunal considered the whole evidence and concluded that petitioner was not guilty of rash or negligent driving. The second charge relates to the petitioner not anticipating the accident. It may be noted that this charge is also connected to the first charge. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the first charge was rejected as not proved the second charge should also fail. This contention is repelled by the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC. It may however be noted that the accident has occurred and that resulted in injuries to some persons. 5. In the circumstances of the case having regard to the fact that charge relating to rash or negligent driving was not proved, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would not be defeated if having regard to the nature of the case the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages and any monetary relief relating to increments. For the relevant period during which the petitioner was out of duty he may be granted only notional increments which may be counted for the purpose of his pension. 6. This writ petition is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 12th August 2011 CVRK