IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8843 of 2008 Between: M.Rama Swamy E. 48653 Trimmer S/o.M.Mutyalu R/o.10-1-108 Old Maredpally Sec-Bad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy.Chief Mechanical Engineer-II A.P.S.R.T.C Hyderabad City Region Jubliee Bus Station,Picket Sec-Bad. 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Dilsuknagar Depot Hyd. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents removing the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.02/2(13)/99-DSNR dt.11-01-2000 and modify so far postponing the annual increments of the petitioner for a period of two years which shall have effect on his further increments and period from the dt. of removal to dt of reporting for duty as not on duty for all the purpose by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.ST/19(2)/2000-DY.CME.-II dt.31-01-2001 as illegal arbitray without jurisdiction and contrary to the CCA Regulations and liable to be set aside and seeking direction to grarnt the increments continuity of Service for all purpose and to release the back wages the interregnum period from the date of suspension to till the date of reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.S.A.K.Mynuddin Counsel for the Respondents: K.Madhava Reddy(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Trimmer in Dilsukhnagar Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 21.08.1999, he had driven a Departmental Goods Transport (D.G.T.) vehicle of that depot to the workshop at Uppal. On the way, he caused an accident, resulting in the death of a cyclist. A charge sheet, dated 06.10.1999, was issued to the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second respondent caused departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved in his report, dated 22.12.1999. After inviting comments of the petitioner on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent passed an order, dated 11.01.2000, directing his removal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer-II, the first respondent herein. The appeal was partly allowed vide order, dated 31.01.2001, by setting aside the order of removal, but imposing the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri S.A.K.Mynoddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it was no part of the duty of the petitioner to drive a vehicle and the petitioner had to obey the instructions of his superiors in driving. He contends that the innocence of the petitioner was proved, through the judgment of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad-East & North, Ranga Reddy District in C.C.No.1779 of 1999 and there is no basis for the orders passed by the respondents. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that one of the charges framed against the petitioner is that he drove the vehicle without holding proper licence and there is nothing on record to disclose that the petitioner was compelled to drive the vehicle. The duty of the petitioner is only to stitch the seats and put them in proper condition. It is incidental that the petitioner holds a light motor vehicle licence and under the duty chart, he is not at all supposed to drive a vehicle of the Corporation, much less, a heavy vehicle, D.G.T. It is a matter of record that a cyclist died in the accident involving the D.G.T. vehicle, which was being driven by the petitioner. Though it is strenuously contended that the petitioner had to obey the instructions of his superiors to drive the D.G.T. vehicle from Dilsukhnagar to Uppal, he was not able to establish the same. The production of duty chart or examination of the officials concerned would have been of immense help to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the petitioner drove the vehicle on his accord or was compelled to drive the same. In the absence of that, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner has taken up on himself the task of driving the D.G.T. vehicle and thereby, caused the accident. Since both the charges were held proved against the petitioner, the second respondent removed him from service. The first respondent took a lenient view of the matter and substituted the order of removal with that of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Though a review is provided against the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner did not avail the same. Seven years have elapsed, since the first respondent passed the order. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}