THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2949 OF 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is preferred by a former driver of the State- owned Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation who has been proceeded, as a measure of discipline, and imposed with a penalty of removal from service with effect from 22.09.1997. The writ petitioner, while conducting a bus belonging to the respondent Corporation, caused an accident to the bus on 23.01.1997, all due to lack of imagination and anticipation. The wind shield of the bus broke and the explanation offered by the writ petitioner was that he could not bring the bus to a halt, because of the brakes rolling. The Corporation got the vehicle tested in their workshop and found that the explanation offered by the writ petitioner is not correct. At the domestic enquiry, it was established that the accident has been caused due to lack of imagination and anticipation on the part of the writ petitioner, who could not bring the bus to a halt quickly, resulting in bus impacting a truck running ahead of it. Further, the writ petitioner has not reported the accident at the nearest bus depot, nor did he report the accident to the garage. Since he was attached to Vuyyuru bus depot, he was required to send an accident intimation to the said depot which he failed to do. Further, he has not even reported the accident to the local police. He has not furnished the particulars of the truck with which the bus of the Corporation came in collision. Thus, the cumulative misconducts exhibited by the writ petitioner have been viewed seriously by the respondent Corporation, as the bus was kept out of service for a day, so as to enable the repairs needed to be carried out all because of the accident. Hence, the Depot Manager passed the orders of punishment of removal against the writ petitioner. Calling in question the validity of the orders of the Depot Manager, the writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Guntur under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 19.11.2001, i.e. after a little more than four years time. During the pendency of the industrial dispute, the writ petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2004. Therefore, the Labour Court exercised the discretion available with in terms of Section 11-A of the Act and substituted the punishment of retirement from service with effect from 22.09.1997 instead of removal from service. Since all the employees of the Corporation who attain the age of superannuation any day between 2nd to the end of the month, will be required to retire only on the last day of the month, the Labour Court directed the respondent Corporation to treat the writ petitioner to have retired from service with effect from 30.09.1997 and on that basis, the Corporation was directed to settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation has settled all the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner treating him to have retired from the service of the Corporation on 30.09.1997, pursuant to the Award passed by the Labour Court on 17.12.2004. The Award of the Labour Court was published on 24.01.2005. The writ petitioner again took more than a year’s time to institute this Writ Petition, calling in question the correctness of the Award passed by the Labour Court. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, strenuously submits that the accident that has been caused to the bus is a minor accident and no bodily harm or injury has been caused to any of the passengers or employees of the Corporation. The bus has suffered very little damage in the process. Since the Corporation considered it appropriate to recover a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the salary and allowances payable to the writ petitioner, pursuant to an order passed in that regard on 13.05.1997, the writ petitioner should not have been subjected to a second punishment on the same score. Further, there is no material that has been brought on record of the domestic enquiry to discredit the contention of the writ petitioner that the accident had occasioned all because of the failure of the brakes. The Labour Court, having realized, in principle, that the punishment of removal imposed on the writ petitioner is disproportionate to the proven misconduct, ought to have substituted an appropriate punishment instead of imposing another major punishment of retirement from service. The writ petitioner has lost nearly seven years of service benefit in the process. Therefore, the exercise of discretion has not been properly carried out by the Corporation. I am not in agreement with any of the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, for the following reasons: the writ petitioner has been asked to reimburse the costs involved in replacing the broken wind shield by the APSRTC by passing an order on 13.05.1997. It is not the end of the story. Employees, who are prima facie found responsible for causing loss or damage to the property of the Corporation, are liable to reimburse the Corporation of the extent incurred for repairing or replacing the broken parts of a bus. Hence, the writ petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- representing the costs of the replaced parts. Sofar as the misconduct per se is concerned, he has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. In my opinion, such an action on the part of the Corporation does not amount to imposition of double punishment. The element of misconduct committed by the writ petitioner becomes the subject matter of the disciplinary action initiated against him. The writ petitioner is guilty of not intimating the accident either to the depot where from he was operating or to the nearest depot en route. He has also failed to intimate the local police about the accident. He has not even performed the basic duty of intimating the particulars of the truck with which the bus driven by him had come in collision, for the Corporation to examine the facts from the point of view of reimbursement by the said truck only, if the said truck was at fault and responsible for causing the accident. Since the writ petitioner, by his conduct has closed all such avenues for the Corporation, the Corporation has taken a strong exception to his conduct, but however, the competent disciplinary authority has also imposed a grave punishment of removal from service. Since the Labour Court has got the discretion to substitute a suitable punishment, in case it comes to a conclusion that the punishment handed down by the competent authority is excessive, has obviously taken into consideration and account the fact that the writ petitioner has invoked the provision under Section 2A(2) of the Act after a lapse of more than four years after the order of removal has been passed by the competent authority. Further, during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute, the writ petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. Thus, he has denied any possibility of his reengagement or reinstatement by the Corporation. Keeping these factors in mind, the Labour Court ordered the writ petitioner to be treated to have been retired from service with effect from 30.09.1997. The respondent Corporation has accepted the Award and paid the writ petitioner herein the terminal benefits treating him to have retired from service with effect from 30.09.1997. Even after the Award has been published on 24.01.2005, the writ petitioner has taken more than one year’s time to institute this Writ Petition calling in question the validity of the Award. The fact that the writ petitioner has not approached the Labour Court promptly and also this Court with the necessary expedition, would indicate that the writ petitioner is not very keen to challenge the orders of removal as modified by the Labour Court to that of retirement, seriously. It is quite possible that the writ petitioner may not be willing to serve the respondent Corporation any further, either because he was hurt by the harsh treatment meted out to him all because of a minor accident caused by him. Therefore, there is no material on record for me to arrive at a conclusion that the Labour Court has misdirected its discretion in the matter. I, therefore, do not se any justification either to remand the matter back to the Labour Court or substitute any other punishment to that of the one imposed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, but, however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd February 2011 ksld