HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1016 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring proceedings No.PA/19(25)/07-VJA dated 19/12/2007 and proceedings No.1(09)/05-GDV dated 26/07/2007 passed by the third and fourth respondents respectively in removing and confirming the removal order passed against the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, to direct the respondents to provide any suitable alternative employment as per Section 47 (1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 (for brevity ‘the Act’) by protecting all the benefits including pay, service, arrears of salaries and increments etc. According to the petitioner, he was working as a driver and attached to APSRTC Bus Depot, Gudivada, Krishna District. On 30/11/2005, while he was driving the bus bearing No.AP11 Z-204, on the route Gudivada to Vijayawada, at Manikonda, the bus met with an accident of another APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z-8439 being driven by a casual driver coming in the opposite direction with full speed and in a negligent manner. The petitioner suffered major injuries. The right leg of the petitioner was amputated below the knee. Further, on 24/04/2006, he was declared medically unfit to hold the post of driver. Subsequently, on 28/05/2006, a charge sheet was issued saying that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the bus. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17/06/2006 and a show cause notice was issued on 25/07/2006 and in the show cause notice, since three reports purported to have been the base for issuance of show cause notice, he submitted an explanation on 09/09/2006. Finally, the petitioner was removed from service on medical grounds on 26/07/2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal. However, the same was dismissed on 19/12/2007. Therefore, this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the very order of removal passed by the third respondent is self-explanatory. The removal order was passed on the ground that the petitioner was declared medically unfit to hold the post of a driver. Even otherwise, the charge sheet dated 28/05/2006 in respect of other charges seems to be only an after thought since it was issued after he was declared medically unfit on 24/04/2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that once the petitioner is declared medically unfit to hold the post of driver on amputation of his leg, he was entitled for being considered for an alternative employment under Section 47 (1) of the Act. Instead of doing so, the respondents have invited a novel method of issuing a charge sheet on 28/05/2006 and conducting an enquiry. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel, there was no enquiry conducted as required under the law, except the preliminary enquiry report and the issuing of show cause notice. Even otherwise, the removal order was passed on the ground that the petitioner became medically unfit to hold the post of driver and not on the ground that his negligent driving etc. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the bus which was coming in the opposite direction was driven by a casual driver and he was held to be rash and negligent and disciplinary action was initiated against the driver of the opposite vehicle. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Depot Manager as confirmed by the Divisional Manager is liable to be set aside. While reiterating the stand taken in the counter, learned counsel for the respondent stated that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was held guilty, and therefore, the removal order was passed since he was declared medically unfit to hold the post of a driver on medical grounds. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The fact that the petitioner was declared as medically unfit to hold the post of driver on 24/04/2006 is not in dispute. Further, there was no detailed enquiry conducted into the charge sheet issued on 28/05/2006 except issuing a show cause notice dated 25/07/2006. The petitioner was removed from service on 26/07/2007 on the ground that he became medically unfit to hold the post of driver and not on any other ground though many other charges were framed. I am of the opinion that once the petitioner is held to be unfit to hold the post of driver, he ought not to have been removed from service on the ground that he is medically unfit. Even otherwise, the other charges cannot be taken into consideration since the very enquiry was lodged only after he was declared as medically unfit by issuing charge sheet etc. The only charge was that the petitioner caused accident resulting in huge damage and much inconvenience to the traveling public due to negligent driving and lack of anticipation. This is not a case where any passenger was injured or case of death. On the other hand, it is the petitioner, who received injuries and which resulted in amputation of his right leg below the knee. The management seems to be under confusion and what the order they have passed cannot be suspended under the law. Once he is removed on medical grounds and when he was declared unfit to hold the post of driver, he is entitled for alternative employment under Section 47 (1) f the Act. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is set aside in so far as the finding that the petitioner is removed on medical ground, and the respondents are directed to provide any alternative employment under Section 47 (1) of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with all pay protection and continuation of service, however, without any monetary benefits. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 26th April, 2010 SKM