IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5649 of 2008 Between: N. Yadagiri, S/o. Late Somaiah, E.No. 87357, Post and Village, Pallepahad, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Nalgonda. 3 The Enquiry Officer, O/o. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned proceedings of suspension No. P1/2(22)/2007-NLG dated 28-12-2007 charge sheet No. P1/2(22)/2007-NLG dated 28-12-2007 and as well as the enquiry notice No. CI/E(21)/2008-RM-N dated 03-3-2008 as unjust, arbitrary, capricious, and in violatin of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5649 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the Nalgonda Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. While he was driving a bus on the route from Nalgonda to Vijayawada on 15.10.2007, an accident took place near Kodad, resulting in the death of an auto driver. A criminal case is pending against the petitioner, in relation to the same, and he was also placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, framing a charge to the effect that he failed to swerve the bus to the extreme left, when he noticed auto rickshaw No.AP24 U 2335 and instead, dashed against it, resulting in the death of the auto driver. A report, together with a rough sketch, prepared by the Station Manager, Kodad was also enclosed as supporting material. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.02.2008. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension, dated 28.12.2007, the charge sheet issued to him, and the other connected proceedings. Petitioner contends that when a criminal case is pending in relation to the same charge, it is not at all permissible for the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry. Another contention is that the sketch and report submitted by the Station Manger, Kodad is totally at variance with the scene of offence panchanama prepared by the police. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Judgments of this Court i n A.Peddanna vs. Divisional Security Commisioner, RPF, Guntakal[1] and Y.S.Vidya Sagar vs. Deputy General Manager, SBI[2], it is not open to the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry, since the purport of the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is one and the same. He further submits that on merits also, the charge cannot be sustained. Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had already submitted explanation to the charge sheet and that the rash and negligent driving is an independent act of misconduct. It is no doubt true that in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that where the content of the charge in the departmental proceedings on the one hand and in the criminal case on the other, is one and the same, it is not advisible for the Department to proceed with the enquiry. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing a charge under Section 304-A I.P.C in the criminal case, whereas in the departmental proceedings, specific acts of lack of anticipation, failure to swerve the bus to extreme left etc., are mentioned. It is difficult to hold that the content of the charge in both of them is identical. One of the factors relied upon by the respondents in framing the charge against the petitioner is the sketch drawn by the Station Manager, Kodad on imagination and the report submitted by him. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by recording the statements of Driver, Conductor etc. In his explanation, the petitioner had drawn a comparison between the sketch prepared by the Station Manger, on the one hand and the one prepared by the police on the other. On a perusal of the same, a substantial difference can be perceived. In the scene of offence panchanama prepared by the police, the bus as well as auto rickshaw were shown on the left side half of the road, whereas in the sketch prepared by the Station Manger, both of them were shown on the right side of the road. The report submitted by the Station Manager clearly discloses that the sketch was prepared on imagination and after the accident took place, whereas the sketch submitted by the police was prepared, soon after the occurrence of the accident. These, however, are matters, which need to be taken into account by the disciplinary authority. There is no reason to believe that the disciplinary authority would not apply its mind to the relevant facts, particularly those, which are depicted by the record. This Court is not inclined to interdict the departmental proceedings, at this stage. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to put forward all his contentions before the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, who, in turn, shall take the same into account, while submitting the report or passing the final order, as the case may be. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5649 of 2008 Date: 17.03.2008 JSU [1] 2006(2) ALD 560 [2] 2006 LAB. I.C. 1354