IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12813 of 1999 Between: P. Somesh, S/o. Pullaiah, Ex-Driver, APSRTC, R/o. Prashant Nagar, Meerpet P.O., Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Depot Manager, APSRTC, Picket, Bus depot, Secunderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, R.R.Dist, at Secunderabad. 3 The Additional Industrial Tribunal Cum - Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, ....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 pleased to set aside the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal - cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D. 169 of dt. 31.12.98 and consequently set aside the impugned order bearing No. P2/2(14)/93-Pet dt. 20.6.94 while reinstating the petitioner back into service with all consequential and monetary benefits with continuity of service, and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 12813 of 1999 Order: This writ petition is filed by a driver of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 31.12.1998 passed in I.D. No. 169 of 1996 by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order of removal dated 20.06.1994, passed in proceedings No.P2/2(14)/93-PKT by the Depot Manager, Picket Depot, as a measure of disciplinary action. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the service of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was attached to Picket bus depot, Secunderabad. On 04.07.1993, while he was driving the bus bearing No. AEZ 1409, on route from Picket Depot to Kondamadugu, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus bearing No. AEZ 2180 of Uppal depot, which was coming in opposite direction. In the said accident four passengers were died and 14 others were injured. Immediately after the accident, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, and based on the said enquiry report, which revealed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner, regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet was issued to him on 21.01.1994 framing two charges. The charges framed against the petitioner/delinquent employee read as under: Charge No.1: For having driven the vehicle No. AEZ 1409 route Picket to Kondamadugu in a rash and negligent manner and also due to lack of anticipation resulting in a head on collusion fatal accident with Uppal Depot Bus No. AEZ 2180 wherein 4 passengers have dies and 14 injured at about 7.15 hrs. near Sivareddygudem on 04.07.1993 which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (ixa) of APSRTC Emp’s (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Charge No.2: For having caused damages to the vehicle No.AEZ 1409 of Picket depot and AEZ 2180 of Uppal depot Bus i.e., both the vehicles extensively damaged, while performing picket to Kondamadugu on 04.07.1993, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xiii) of APSRTC Emp’s (Conduct) Reg.1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said charges. Thereupon, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a domestic enquiry into the matter, and the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, submitted his report, dated 04.05.1994, holding that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner only the accident had occurred. Based on the said enquiry report, the Depot Manager, Picket Depot, vide his proceedings No.P2/2(14)/93-PKT, dated 20.06.1994, removed the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner availed the remedy of departmental appeal, that appeal also ended in dismissal, by order dated 29.09.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 169 of 1996, under Section 2-A(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal also, by reason of the award impugned herein, having held that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident due to lack of anticipation, dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In this writ petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle on the date of accident and that the accident occurred only due to mechanical defect of the bus. It is further argued that the vehicle was an old one and the steering of the vehicle was completely broken before the accident itself, and that when the vehicle reached the spot of accident, it suddenly pulled towards right side and in spite of his best efforts the petitioner could not control the vehicle, which resulted in accident. The petitioner also took the similar stand before the competent authority of the Department, who recorded a finding to the following effect. “On perusal of the statements of the driver of Uppal depot vehicle, Conductors of Uppal depot and Picket depot together with the rough sketch drawn at the place of accident it is clear that the Uppal depot vehicle was on the extreme left side of the road whereas the vehicle of Picket depot after hitting the Uppal depot bus took extreme turn into the nearby place of murram portion of the road. The log sheet complaints from 01.06.1993 to 03.07.1993 reveals that there were no major complaints of steering system and suspension and also there were no mechanical defects of tyres. In view of the above discussion it is manifestly clear that this ghastly accident took place due to negligence, lack of anticipation on the part of Sri P. Somesh, E.270542 driver of Picket depot.” Similarly, the above said contention of the petitioner was also not accepted by the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any report on the condition of the vehicle, the respondents ought not to have removed the petitioner from service, but from the defence of the petitioner itself it is to be noticed that the only defect he has pointed out was that the steering of the vehicle was broken and as it was not functioning well, he could not drive the vehicle properly. Except the version of the petitioner, which is an after thought, there is no other material in support of his defence. The petitioner did not complain about the defect in the steering of the vehicle either in the beginning or enroute. Had it been so, he would have simply stopped the bus and reported the same to the authority concerned. Even the sketch report, which was prepared at the accident spot, reveals that the Uppal depot bus was coming in opposite direction on the extreme left side of the road and the petitioner drove his bus towards right side and dashed the said bus. Merely because there is no report on the condition of the vehicle, it cannot be said that the accident occurred only due to mechanical defect of the bus. In the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, it is also observed that there is no complaint recorded in the Log Sheet, pointing out any defects in the bus during the period earlier to the accident. In that view of the matter, the only defence of the counsel that since the steering of the vehicle had broken, it resulted in pulling of the bus towards right side, has rightly not accepted by the primary and appellate authorities as well as by the Tribunal. It is also to be noted that in the accident four passengers had lost their lives and 14 others were injured, but for the negligent and reckless driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. ‘ Further, though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the acquittal orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Ranga Reddy District, in C.C. No. 11 of 2002, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service, but it is to be noticed that a copy of the said judgment is passed on only during the course of argument. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the petitioner was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The departmental proceedings stand in different footing and the strict proof, which is required in the criminal proceedings, is not a sine quanon for passing an order of removal in departmental proceedings, which order is passed based on the enquiry report. In that view of the matter and as much as the factual findings are concurrently recorded by all the authorities, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of removal passed against the petitioner, as confirmed by the Tribunal, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 21.01.2009 Nsr