IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15577 of 2002 Between: M.Kishan S/o. Late Ramaiah R/o.Miyapur, R.R.District, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Labour Court-II, 4th Floor, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Presiding Officer. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the records from the 1st respondent in respect of I.D.No.32/99 and quash the impugned award dt.8.3.2002 made in I.D.No.32/99 published on 3.5.2002 in not granting any relief as arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Art. 14,16, & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15577 OF 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an award, dated 08.03.2002, made in I.D.No.32 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, whereunder the claim petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), challenging the order of removal passed by the 2nd respondent- management, was dismissed. Petitioner is the workman and 2nd respondent is the management. It appears, the petitioner, while working as driver with the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation at Medak Bus Depot, was alleged to have caused a road accident on 18.09.1993, while driving the bus bearing No.AP9Z 5588 between City Bus Station and Medak via Toopran, wherein a four years old boy died and his mother sustained grievous injuries. Thereupon, he was issued with a charge sheet, dated 11.10.1993, enumerating the following charges: 1. For having driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner resulting into the death of a child and major injuries to his mother which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix) (b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle with lack of anticipation causing for the fatal accident which comes under misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the mater, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed against him and, consequently, he was imposed with a punishment of removal from service, by an order, dated 04.01.1994, of the 2nd respondent. The appeal and review petitions stated to have been filed by the petitioner, challenging the said punishment, were rejected by the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.32 of 1999 before the 1st respondent- Labour Court, which was dismissed on 08.03.2002, by the impugned order. It was the case of the petitioner before the Labour Court that he did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and absolutely there was no evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The enquiry officer, without there being any evidence, held him guilty of the charges, and the disciplinary authority has erroneously accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed the punishment of removal service. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority, without properly appreciating the matter, has confirmed the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. The respondent-management filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It was asserted that the domestic enquiry was conducted, after following the due process of law, and the same is valid and proper, and, after issuing a show cause notice only, final orders imposing the punishment of removal from service were passed. Further, the charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and were proved beyond any reasonable doubt and, therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly removed the petitioner from service. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority also have taken into consideration the gravity of the charges and, thus, rightly confirmed the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. Further, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice issued and, therefore, it was presumed that he accepted the punishment proposed. Before the Labour Court, though no oral evidence was let in by both the parties, Ex.W1 was marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.M1 to M18 were marked on behalf of the management. After a detailed consideration of the entire material placed before it, the Labour Court held that as per the rough sketch and also the evidence of the Assistant Manager (Traffic), there were skid marks to a distance of 47 feet on the road at the place of accident and, during the domestic enquiry, the petitioner himself stated that the speed of the bus at the time of accident was 40 kilometres per hour. Further, driving the bus at a speed of 40 kilometres per hour while going in a village amounts to rash and negligent driving, and the length of the skid marks found at the place of accident would clearly indicate that the bus was driven by the petitioner at a high speed. It was also observed that in the criminal case filed against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay fine. Ultimately, the Labour Court felt that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were just and proper and the charges were proved in full. It was further opined that, in view of the gravity of the misconduct committed and in view of the conviction recorded against the petitioner, the respondent-management was justified in removing the petitioner from service and the appellate and reviewing authorities were justified in confirming the said punishment. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed on 08.03.2002, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that, on the fateful day, when the bus, driven by the petitioner, was about to reach Toopran, a couple along with a child was going ahead of the bus and, when they tried to cross the road from left to right, the petitioner slowed down the bus by applying breaks and swerved the bus to the right side. But, the boy suddenly turned towards left side from right side and on that his mother also turned and, in that process, both of them touched the body of the bus, resulting in the unfortunate incident. Thus, though the petitioner has taken all the precautions, the accident occurred due to the carelessness of the boy and his mother in crossing the road, and the action of the management in removing the petitioner from service for such an incident is unjust and improper. Even if it is assumed that there is some negligence on the part of the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. The Labour Court ought to have set aside the order of the disciplinary authority and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, instead of dismissing the petition. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-management strenuously contended that in view of the death of four years old boy and the grievous injuries sustained by his mother in the road accident caused by the petitioner, it must be construed that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation. In the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges, which are grave in nature, and, hence, the disciplinary authority rightly imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority opined that the said punishment was just and proper and, hence, refused to interfere with the same. The Labour Court also, after appreciating the entire evidence, concurred with the findings of the authorities and dismissed the petition filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. It appears, there was some negligence and lack of anticipation on the part of the petitioner, which resulted in a fatal accident, wherein a four years old boy died and his mother sustained grievous injuries. But, the petitioner was having clean record of his past service and, absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in such misconduct at any point of time during his eight years of service. There was no assertion by the management before the Labour Court or this Court that the past conduct of the petitioner was not good. In my opinion, when there was no such past misconduct, taking the eight long years of unblemished service rendered by the petitioner into consideration, the management could have imposed a lesser punishment than that of removal from service. Though the charges are proved, the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved. The Labour Court ought to have observed the same and reduced the punishment, by exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act. Instead of that, the Labour Court erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner holding that he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. For all the above reasons, to meet the ends of justice, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be modified and is modified to the following effect:- “In the result, the removal order, dated 04.01.1994, passed by the respondent-management is set aside and the respondent- management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and attendant benefits.” With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, 4th Floor, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep. by its 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot, Medak, Medak District. 3 Two CD Copies