THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.17490 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner without holding any enquiry. It is stated that the writ petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis for operating the fleet of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short `APSRTC’) during the month of April 2008. It is alleged against the petitioner that he has caused an accident resulting in damage to the bus, which allegation the petitioner has denied and instead pointed out that with a view to avoid a major accident, he had taken care to see to it that such a mishap is averted and in the process if the bus has received any damage, the same must be examined from the perspective of facts at the site of the accident and not in isolation. Without appreciating his contention, the Depot Manager passed orders on 16.1.2009 terminating the service of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has carried the matter by filing a review petition before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool Region. The Regional Manager passed orders on 29.9.1999. The Regional Manager though did not agree with the contention of the writ petitioner that he is not responsible for causing the accident on 19.12.2008 at 4 Hours, but the accident had occasioned all because of the fault of the truck driver which was proceeding ahead of the bus driven by the writ petitioner. But, however, taking a lenient view, the Regional Manager has decided to modify the termination order to that of re-engagement as fresh driver on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.5,381/- The writ petitioner is also posted at Yemmiganur Depot and he was directed to report there within ten days. On the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to report before the Depot Manager, Yemmiganur, within the ten days period provided for, the Regional Manager has treated to have cancelled his earlier proceedings dated 20.9.2009 ordering for reengaging the services of the writ petitioner. I have heard Ms.Swapna, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Ms.Swapna, would strenuously contend that the respondent authorities are under an obligation to consider the facts and circumstances that lead to motor accidents and without any regard to those facts and circumstances should not proceed to penalize the employees. Learned counsel would urge that if a truck driver who is proceeding ahead on the road of the APSRTC Bus driven by the writ petitioner was so careless to apply sudden brake to his vehicle as a result of which the said vehicle skids off the road and falls ahead of the bus driven by the writ petitioner, if the writ petitioner had taken all the necessary precautions to avoid of hitting the said vehicle, but inspite of swerving the vehicle driven by him to the extreme left, if he could not avoid any impact and thus if any damage is caused to the bus, the facts leading up to it must necessarily be construed in favour of the writ petitioner. If the writ petitioner has employed all the necessary degree of care and caution and has avoided a major impact to the bus in question which perhaps could have resulted in grievous injuries to the inmates of the bus, the facts must necessarily be appreciated and the efforts of the writ petitioner deserve to be commended for that purpose. Apart from that, the respondents, according to the learned counsel have unjustly penalized the writ petitioner. I can see lot of force in the submissions made by Ms.Swapna, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Accidents involving in motor vehicles are not caused at all times for sheer lack of degree of care or skill on the part of the driver. But, sometimes, the drivers of other vehicles on the road could have also caused or contributed to accidents. Therefore, in abstract terms no one can rush to a conclusion that the driver of the bus is wholly responsible for causing such an accident going by the degree of damage sustained to the bus as has been narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the writ petitioner has applied himself fully to the dangers and risks involved, all because of the vehicle proceeding ahead of it falling off the road and if the petitioner has swerved the bus to its left side to avoid a grave impact and thus save the corporation, a possible action from the passengers getting injured, the efforts of the writ petitioner deserve to be appreciated. These facts would be known only from the inspection of the accident site. Far removed from the accident site, the conclusions could not have been drawn. Therefore, I consider that action of the Depot Manager, Kurnool Depot, in passing orders on 16.1.2009 does not appear to be valid or reasonable. The Regional Manager ought to have called the report from Joint Action Committee, relating to the accident in question and based upon the findings recorded therein, he ought to have processed the entire matter. For sheer failure to do so, the writ petitioner should not be faulted. I therefore consider this to be a fit case to set aside the orders passed by the Depot Manager, Kurnool, on 16.1.2009 and order for reengagement of the writ petitioner forth with as a driver on contract basis. It is certainly open to the Regional Manager of the APSRTC, Kurnool Region to utilize the service of the writ petitioner either at Kurnool Depot or at any other Depot in Kurnool District by issuing appropriate proceedings in that respect within a period of 15 days from today. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 11th August 2010