HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 6321 of 2000 ORDER : The petitioner, who worked as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) at its Jeedimetla Bus Depot, ﬁled this writ petition, challenging the validity of the award, dated 3rd February 1999, passed in I.D.No.126 of 1998 by the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Driver in APSRTC in the year 1988 and was attached to its Jeedimetla Depot. On 25.07.1993, the petitioner was on duty driving the bus bearing No.ABZ-1357 on the route from Jeedimetla to Ameerpet. In the transit, near Jeedimetla electric sub-station, the bus met with an accident by dashing against two cyclists, which resulted in the death of those two persons. With reference to the said accident, attributing negligence while discharging his duties, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as per the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, by framing three charges, which read as under : “1. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ 1357 in a rash negligent manner on 25-7- 1993 at about 17.45 hrs endangering the lives of passengers and other road users which amounts to serious act of mis- conduct under Regulation 28(ix))(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having caused the death of two persons who were riding on a cycle by your rash and negligent driving of Bus No.AEZ 1357 on 25-7-1993, causing death of persons in accidents amounts to serious act of misconduct in terms of Regulations, 1963. 3. For having absconded from attending to your duties after the above accident for the period 28-7-1993 to 31-8-1993. Absconding from attending to duties amounts to unauthorized absentism under Regulation 5 and 28(xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs., 1963.” 3. The petitioner has ﬁled his explanation, denying the above charges. But, however, dissatisﬁed with his explanation, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry oﬃcer to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The inquiry oﬃcer, who conducted the inquiry by following the procedure contemplated under the Regulations, recorded his ﬁndings that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the same, after giving further opportunity of show cause notice, petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings No.01/2(19)/93-JDM, dated 17.12.1993. Though the petitioner has availed the remedy of departmental appeal, but he was unsuccessful and his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by an order, dated 20th October 1994. 4. Challenging the order of removal as conﬁrmed by the departmental appellate authority, the petitioner has raised an industrial dispute by way of an application under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and the same was numbered as I.D.No.126 of 1998. Before the Tribunal, a memo was ﬁled on behalf of the workman, wherein the domestic inquiry proceedings were not disputed. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the workman, two documents were ﬁled in Exs.W-1 and W-2 and on behalf of management, Exs.M-1 to M-22 were marked. The Tribunal, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, concurred with the ﬁndings of the inquiry oﬃcer, and shared the same view, and dismissed the claim petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Veera Reddy and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, but inspite of the same, misconstruing the evidence on record, and by recording erroneous ﬁndings, the petitioner was removed from service. It is submitted that though there was no evidence at all to support the charges framed against the petitioner, but inspite of the same, the charges were held proved. It is submitted that as much as it is a case of no evidence in support of the charges, the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse, and the order of removal as conﬁrmed by the Tribunal, is ﬁt to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of M/s.Usha Breco Ltd.[1]. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation that in this case, from the evidence on record, it is clearly proved that the petitioner was driving the bus in high speed, due to which, he could not control the same and dashed against the cyclists, who were proceeding on the same route on the left side of the road, and as such, it is the case of the learned Standing Counsel that the negligence of petitioner has resulted in the death of two innocent persons. He further submitted that as much as the ﬁndings recorded in the departmental proceedings are in conformity with the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition ﬁled by the workman. It is submitted that though the workman did not dispute validity of the domestic inquiry, but inspite of the same, the Tribunal has also re-appreciated the evidence on record and recorded its ﬁndings, and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings recorded by the Tribunal are either perverse or illegal, so as to interfere with the same in this petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his arguments, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Depot Manager, APSRTC, Parvathipuram v. D.Vykuntarao[2]. 8. With reference to the above said rival contentions, it is to be noted that though the charges are three in number, charge Nos.1 and 2 are inter- related and are based on the same set of evidence. It is the case of the management that the petitioner has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the cyclists, who were proceeding on the same route, by driving the bus on to the extreme left side of the road negligently and dashing the cyclists. Though it was the case of the workman that the cyclists were coming in the opposite direction and swerved to the extreme right suddenly, and that they were in intoxication condition, but the same was not believed by the Tribunal. A case was put-forth on behalf of the workman that though there are statements of passengers recorded in the S.R., the same are not taken into consideration. But however, it is to be noted that the said statements will not out-way the oral evidence recorded by the inquiry oﬃcer in the inquiry proceedings. The Traﬃc Superintendent, who conducted the preliminary inquiry, and the inquiry oﬃcer, who conducted the regular inquiry, have categorically found that the Driver was driving the bus at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The plea of the workman that the cyclists were coming in the opposite direction, was not believed. Though it is pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the motor vehicle claim, the Corporation has taken the stand to the eﬀect that there was no fault on the part of the Driver, but however, the same was not accepted, and ultimately, the claim for compensation was also allowed against the Corporation. Merely because to save the revenue of the Corporation if such a stand is taken, when it is not even accepted in the ﬁnal verdict by the motor vehicle Tribunal, same is no ground to annul the ﬁndings recorded in the present proceedings. As a matter of fact, from the sketch showing the accident spot, it was found that there were skid marks for a distance of about 50 feet, which itself shows the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-Driver. Even assuming that there was negligence on the part of the cyclists also, the petitioner-Driver could have been in a cautious position so as to control the vehicle within the limited distance. The very skid marks to an extent of 50 feet indicate the negligent conduct of the petitioner-Driver in not driving the vehicle carefully, and his negligence has resulted in the loss of two innocent lives. Though it is also pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, but the same is also correctly dealt with by the Tribunal. Though several eyewitnesses are shown in the S.R., but however, the only eyewitness by name Md.Mahboob was examined, who has turned hostile, and the same has resulted in acquittal of petitioner in criminal proceedings. The hostility of the eyewitness in such cases can be for any reason. In that view of the matter, merely because the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings, by itself, is no ground to disprove the ﬁndings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings on appreciation of evidence on record. It is the settled preposition of law that the degree of proof diﬀers from that of the disciplinary proceedings to that of criminal proceedings. Whereas probability is suﬃcient in the disciplinary proceedings, but on the other hand, the allegations are to be proved by strict proof of evidence in criminal law. In such an event, mere acquittal in a criminal case will not have any bearing in a case of this nature. 9. Further, though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh (supra 1), but that is a case where, in the judgment of the Labour Court itself, it was recorded that the management has failed to establish the charges levelled against the workman. But in the case on hand, on appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal itself has found that the petitioner- Driver was negligent in driving the bus. Therefore, the above judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, would not render any assistance to him. 10. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in the case of Depot Manager, APSRTC, Parvathipuram (supra 2), applies to the facts of the case on hand. In the identical set of facts, a Division Bench of this Court has held ; “it is not proper for this Court to set aside the award of the Tribunal unless the approach adopted by the Tribunal was found to be erroneous or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.” The above ﬁndings recorded by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, certainly supports the plea of the respondents/ management that since the Tribunal has recorded its ﬁndings having regard to the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the said ﬁndings are either erroneous or illegal, so as to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th November 2008 ajr [1] 2008 (5) SCJ 439 [2] 2006 (4) ALT 668 (D.B)