*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +Writ Petition No.12302 of 2008 % 19.09.2006 Between: M.C. Rayappa ..... Petitioner AND A.P.S.R.T.C. and others, .....Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri K.Rama MOHAN-MAHADEVA ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: SMT.WVS. Rajeswari, S.C. < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12302 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in the Palamaneru Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The 1st respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet, dated 22-03-2003, alleging that the petitioner has driven a bus bearing No.AP-9Z-9906, though he was not assigned any duty, in respect of that vehicle, and caused an accident on 01-03-2003. It was alleged that the petitioner had taken the vehicle from the Duty Driver, S. Ravi and caused accident. Relevant provisions of the Service Regulations were invoked. Since the petitioner denied the charges, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, submitted a report, dated 07-07-2003, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. The 1st respondent passed an order dated 08-09-2003, directing removal of the petitioner from service. Departmental remedies of appeal and review were not fruitful. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Anantapur, by filing I.D.No.217 of 2004, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). Through its Award dated 30-10-2007, the Labour Court partly allowed the I.D., set aside the order of removal from service, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits, or backwages. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the Award, to the extent it has denied the attendant benefits and backwages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved, and even the Duty Driver, by name, Ravi, has stated that the accident took place when he was driving the vehicle. He contends that though the Labour Court was convinced that the order of removal cannot be sustained in law, it had denied substantial part of the relief. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was guilty of gross dereliction of duties and misconduct, since he unauthorisedly drove the bus and caused accident. The two charges levelled against the petitioner are, that he has unauthorisedly driven vehicle bearing No. AP-9Z-9906, on 01-03-2003, and that he caused fatal accident, on the way. The record discloses that the Driver, by name, Ravi, and Conductor, by name, C.V. Kumar, were assigned the duty on a service, between Palemaner and Bangarupalem. When accident occurred on the way, it naturally gave rise to causing of inquiries by the Police, as well as the Corporation. It was found that the petitioner herein was on the said vehicle, at the time of accident. The Driver, who was on duty, namely, Mr.Ravi, naturally deposed in the domestic inquiry, that he alone was driving the vehicle. Any deposition, otherwise, would have exposed him to the liability of being punished. Therefore, his evidence cannot be of much use. The best person to speak about the relevant facts is the Conductor of the bus. He stated that by the time the bus was started, it was full with passengers, and he started issuing tickets, even while the bus was in motion. Obviously, he did not think it fit to verify, as to who was driving the vehicle, since there cannot be even a suspicion. Once the accident has taken place, he naturally had to pay attention to the incident, and he found that the petitioner herein was on the Driver’s seat. Nothing was elicited from him in the domestic inquiry, to contradict his version. This was also supported by other records. The Labour Court, had, in fact, adopted a very liberal approach by commenting that the version of the Conductor was not definite. In a way, the petitioner must be happy, that the Labour Court entertained a doubt and extended the benefit of the same to him. This, in fact, is a case where, the power and discretion of the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act was fully extended to the petitioner. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, that the High Court would interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act. When the record is so clinching, the petitioner cannot expect that he would be extended all the benefits, as though it is a reward for his acts and omissions. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:19-06-2008. Note: Office to mark L.R. copies. (B/) KO*