THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.643 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver, on casual basis, in the year 1998, in Avanigadda Depot of APSRTC. On 07.02.2000, he was driving a bus, bearing No.AP 9Z 1307, from Avanigadda to Nagayalanka. An accident took place, in which the bus dashed against two mopeds, resulting in death of one person and serious injuries to a woman. A show cause notice, dated 17.07.2000, was issued to the petitioner, requiring him to explain as to why punishment of deletion of his name from the selected list, be not imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on 28.08.2000. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 05.09.2000, directing deletion of the name of the petitioner from the selected list. The departmental appeal and review, filed by the petitioner, were rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. The principal ground urged by him is that the respondents did not conduct any departmental enquiry, before the impugned order was passed. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The occurrence of the accident is not disputed. The 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice on 17.07.2000, proposing the punishment and the petitioner submitted his explanation, on 28.08.2000. In case the explanation was not satisfactory, the 3rd respondent ought to have ordered domestic enquiry. However, such an enquiry was not conducted and a final order, dated 05.09.2000, was passed directing deletion of name of the petitioner from the selected list, which amounts to dismissal of the petitioner from service. Though the appointment of the petitioner was on casual basis, the Regulations, framed by the Corporation governing the disciplinary proceedings, apply to such cases also. An employee can be dismissed from service, only after conducting domestic enquiry. Failure on the part of the 3rd respondent in conducting the regular departmental enquiry is fatal to the entire proceedings and the impugned order cannot be sustained. The charge against the petitioner is, in fact, very serious. Even if the impugned order is set aside, the matter has to go back and the 3rd respondent would be at liberty to initiate the departmental proceedings and take necessary action, after conducting the departmental enquiry. Such a course would certainly be cumbersome, at this stage, and the evidence will not be readily available for either party. This Court is of the view that, having regard to the undisputed facts, namely, involvement of the bus, driven by the petitioner, in an accident, leading to death of a person and injury to a woman; commensurate punishment can be imposed here itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner had agreed for such a course of action and left it to this Court to determine the quantum of punishment. It is felt that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice. The petitioner was already reinstated into service, on the basis of an interim order passed by this Court and he has since been regularized with effect from 05.10.2007. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is imposed upon the petitioner for his involvement in the accident. He shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service from the date of deletion of his name from the approved list, but without any back wages. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30.09.2010. GJ