THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22951 of 2002 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether there are grounds to interfere with the award dated 12.12.2000 passed in I.D.No.34/2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein at the relevant time was a Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and he was allotted to its first respondent depot i.e. Hayathnagar bus depot. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on the following two charges. “Charge No.1: For having driven the vehicle No.AAZ 4504 in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation on 2.6.92 which resulted accident with a pedestrian on 2.6.92 near NTR Nagar on 2.6.92, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix-A of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Charge No.2: For having failed to report about the accident either to Depot authorities or taken the injured person to the nearby hospital for treatment, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3. After receiving the explanation of the petitioner and holding an enquiry the disciplinary authority i.e. the first respondent by its order dated 08.04.1993 awarded a penalty of removal from service and he also directed that the suspension period should be treated as ‘not on duty’. That order was confirmed by the appellate authority and also the revisional authority. 4. Thereafter the petitioner moved the tribunal by way of I.D.No.29/94 challenging the penalty of removal. The tribunal after going through the matter found that the penalty of removal from service was too harsh having regard to the charges and in that view of the matter it directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and in addition to that it also directed stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. It is challenging this award the driver i.e. the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. 6. Coming to the point it may be noted that the first charge relates to causing death by doing rash or negligent act and the second charge relates to not reporting the accident to the authorities and taking the injured to the hospital. It is true that the first charge shows that the acts of the petitioner have resulted in death of a pedestrian. The petitioner has come up with his own explanation which is to the effect that the deceased himself has hit left side portion of the bus and fell down and died. Here it should be noted that the bus did not head on hit the pedestrian. It is seen that after considering all the aspects the tribunal has directed reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages and additionally it also ordered stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner now says that the petitioner has retired from service and the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect has caused sufficient monetary loss to the petitioner as he already lost the back wages. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, says that this court should not interfere with the punishment of stoppage of five increments also. 8. A perusal of the record would however show that though the first charge relates to the death of a pedestrian due to a rash or negligent act, it is brought to my notice that the corresponding criminal case filed against the petitioner has ended in acquittal and that acquittal has also become final. However having regard to the charges especially second charge, the acquittal in criminal case cannot be a ground to exonerate the petitioner from any liability. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would not be defeated if the punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect is reduced to two increments with cumulative effect. The award to this extent is modified and this writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. The respondent- Corporation shall calculate the pension and other service benefits of the petitioner accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 9th August 2011 CVRK