THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1671 of 2004 ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the award, dated 19.09.2002, passed in I.D.No.259 of 2000 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the second respondent to grant backwages and other attendant benefits to him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Driver in the respondent Corporation at Rajahmundry depot on 13.11.1991 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1994. On the intervening night of 3/4.09.1999, when he was driving the bus bearing No.AP 10Z 1851 from Hyderabad to Banaganapalli, it met with an accident due to hit by a van, which came in opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Though the petitioner had taken efforts with abundant caution to avoid and avert the accident, but in vain. The second respondent issued charge memo, dated 25.09.1999, to the petitioner framing the following charges; 1. For your over speed, the vehicle No.AP 10Z 1851 while driving on route Hyderabad to Banaganapalli on 3/4.9.1999 which caused a fatal accident near Boruvalli village at about 1.00 hrs., which constitutes misconduct in terms of clause (xxix) of Reg.28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1963. 2. For your rash and negligent driving, lack of anticipation, lack of central and failure on your part to observe precautions at the time of accident caused by you on route Hyderabad to Banaganapalli on 3/4.09.1999 resulting in death of three occupants of van which constitutes misconduct in terms of sub-clause (a) of Clause (x) of Regd.28 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said charges. An enquiry was conducted and consequent thereto, he was removed from service on 10.02.2000. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal and review and the same were dismissed. Thereafter, he filed I.D.No.259 of 2000 before the Tribunal, which in turn, passed an award, dated 19.09.2002, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, but without backwages. The Tribunal gave a finding that the van driver was responsible for the accident though the petitioner had taken sufficient and abundant precautions to avert the accident. The Tribunal also taken into consideration the judgment rendered in C.C.No.136 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, wherein the petitioner was acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner states that though the Tribunal held that the van driver was responsible for the accident ought to have granted backwages and it has not assigned any reasons for denying backwages. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC submits that, as the petitioner was responsible for the accident resulting the death of three passengers on the spot, the above said two charges were framed against him. He further submits that the Labour Court, after considering all the entire material on record, found that the petitioner was also contributed for causing the accident and therefore, it rightly passed the award denying backwages and therefore, the impugned award is just and proper, and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was acquitted in C.C.No.136 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur and that the Labour Court, after considering all the material available on record, also found that the bus driver was proceeding in up-gradient road, there were ditches on the left side of the road and the van was coming in wrong direction. It also observed that had the bus driver was not alert in driving the bus towards right side, it would result in a ghastly accident. The Labour Court having observed that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and that the van driver was mainly responsible for the accident set aside the order of removal from service and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, but without backwages. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding of the Labour Court that the van driver was mainly responsibel for the accident though the petitioner was also responsible to some extent, I am of the view that total denial of backwages to the petitioner is not justifiable. Therefore, the order impugned is modified directing the respondents to pay 1/4th of the backwages to the petitioner. 6. With the above modification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:27.01.2011 sj