HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P.No. 17089 of 2011 Date: 21-06-2011 Between: Syed Anwar …………. Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region at Sangareddy and another …………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P.No. 17089 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not ordering re-engagement of the petitioner with continuity of service as contract Driver, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to treat the proceedings of the first respondent dated 18- 10-2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and all consequential service benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a contract Driver on 28-11-2008 in the respondent-corporation and he was working as such. While so, he was terminated from service by proceedings, dated 11-05-2010 on the charge of negligent driving and causing the accident. Against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent-reviewing authority by giving his explanation. However, the first respondent issued the proceedings, dated 18-10- 2010 ordering re-engagement of the petitioner as a contract driver. Subsequently, the petitioner has been reinstated into service and was performing the duties as usual. However, recently, the names of the juniors of the petitioner were mentioned in the list of employees proposed for regularization, and the name of the petitioner was not included in the said list on the ground that the word continuity of service was not mentioned in the order of re-engagement passed by the first respondent. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident and the motorcyclist is responsible for the accident and therefore, ordering the punishment of re-engagement without continuity of service is illegal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the same on the ground that since the petitioner caused the accident, appropriate punishment is imposed and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents. 5. The charges levelled against the petitioner are that on 22-01-2010, while he was driving the bus, he caused the accident by dashing a motorcycle. A case was registered against the petitioner. Simultaneously, the departmental proceedings were also initiated. However, the reviewing authority came to the conclusion that the motorcyclist came in the opposite direction in high speed and on seeing the bus, he applied brakes, but lost his control over the motorcycle, as a result of which, he dashed to the bumper of the bus. Therefore, considering these aspects, the reviewing authority ordered reengagement of the petitioner as a fresh contract Driver without continuity of service. 6. In the departmental proceedings, it must be shown that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the Driver in causing the fatal accident resulting the death of one person. Negligence is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and caution which may be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. Rashness does not consist of high speed, but consists of not keeping in mind the rules of road safety and prudence. As seen from the fact situation, the motorcyclist came in the opposite direction in high speed and applied sudden brakes and lost his control over the motorcycle and dashed to the bumper of the buss. In such circumstances, negligence or rashness cannot be attributed only to the petitioner, who was driving the bus at the relevant point of time of the accident. Considering these aspects, the first respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner with regard to continuity of service. 7. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 18-10-2010 is modified by adding a sentence that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of re- engagement only for the purpose of regularization in the existing or future vacancies. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or any other benefits in pursuance of this order. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 21-06-2011 YCR