THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.7684 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the award dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad in I.D.No.145/2001 in confirming the order of removal imposed by the respondent – Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mehadiptnam Depot, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Corporation’) against the petitioner who was working as Driver in the respondent - Corporation prior to his removal, filed the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Casual Driver on 7.6.1980 and was absorbed as regular driver on 7.6.1981 and was further promoted as Grade-I driver on 1.7.1994. While so, on 8.10.1999 when the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5805 on the route no.120, Mehadipatnam – Osmansagar at about 8-40 a.m., opposite to G.Pulla Reddy College, a scooterist was going towards G.P.R.A. quarters and it is alleged that the bus hit the scooter behind and as a result, the scooterist fell down on the road divider and was pressed in between the bus and road divider and he received internal injuries and on the way to the Hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. It is alleged that the accident was due to lack of anticipation of the bus driver. A case in Cr.No.309/1999 under Section 304-A of I.P.C. was also registered against the petitioner. The Chief Inspector of Mehadipatnam Depot Inspected the place of accident and prepared a rough sketch and the same was attested by the petitioner. The Chief Inspector conducted the preliminary enquiry by recording the statements of the petitioner and the service conductor and submitted report ﬁnding prima facie case against the petitioner. Based on the material available on record, the petitioner was suspended from service on 25.11.1999 and he was issued a charge sheet. Though the petitioner was served with notice and as the petitioner did not choose to participate in the enquiry, the enquiry was conducted ex parte and the enquiry officer submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him. The petitioner was served with enquiry report and the petitioner ﬁled his reply on 14.3.2001 and not being satisﬁed with the same, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice of removal and the petitioner submitted his explanation and eventually ﬁnal orders of removal were passed on 7.4.2001 and his appeal came to be rejected on 16.5.2001. Hence, he raised Industrial Dispute and the Tribunal by the impugned award, conﬁrmed the order of removal. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that the passengers who were traveling in the bus also categorically gave a letter dated 8.10.1999 stating that the boy at the turning lane came on a scooter and hit the road fencing and fell unconscious and that the petitioner has not caused any accident and that statement, was not considered by the enquiry oﬃcer. The further case of the petitioner is that when he was driving the bus bearing AP-9Z-5805 on 8.10.1999 from Mehdipatnam to GPRA quarters, he stopped the bus at St Ann’s College to facilitate the passengers to board the bus and after passengers boarded into the bus, he moved the bus slowly and at that time, he observed from the vision mirror that a scooterist coming in the same direction in high speed and tried to over take the bus and that he moved the bus, but the scooterist could not over take the bus and dashed the road divider and fell on the road as he lost his balance while driving the scooter. His case is that the scooterist did not touch the bus, nor his bus touched the scooterist. The further case of the petitioner is that the criminal case in C.C.No.49/2000 on the ﬁle of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad also ended in acquittal on 22.1.2001 for the oﬀence under Section 304-A I.P.C. But the appellate authority by not considering the judgment of the criminal case, imposed the order of removal. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the Joint Accident Committee submitted a report in which the 2nd respondent – Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam Depot, Hyderabad was a member and he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty and issued the charge sheet and passed the order of removal. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent being a member of the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee, ought not to have initiated the action, as he has already prejudged the issue and proceeded with pre-conceived notion. Therefore, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned award is sought to be set aside. The Tribunal without considering these facts, conﬁrmed the order of removal and the same is sought to be set aside. 5. No counter affidavit is filed. 6. The charges against the petitioner are as under: 1. For having caused a fatal accident while driving vehicle no.AP 9Z 5805 on route No.120 with a scooterist at about 09-40 hours on 8.10.1999 at opposite to G.Pulla Reddy College, resulted in death of scooterist due to your rash and negligent driving which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having failed to observe the scooterist on the right of the road and to take precautionary measures while driving the bus A.P.9Z 5805 on route no.120 on 8.10.1999 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 7. The petitioner is the driver on the bus bearing no.AP 9Z 5805 and the charge against him is that due to his rash and negligent driving, he dashed the scooterist and caused the accident on 8.10.1999 and this resulted in the death of the scooterist. After the accident, the Accident Enquiry Committee after verifying all the documents submitted the report as under: “If the bus driver stopped the bus while observing the scooterist on the right of the road, the accident could have averted. As per the rough sketch of the accident it is revealed that the accident occurred on a straight road opposite Pullareddy College the bus has dashed to the scooterist from front side portion of the bus, as such the bumper of the bus got damaged and the scooterist fell down on the road divider pressed in between the bus and road divider. As the bus has dashed to the scooterist the colour marks of the bus have appeared in right side of the scooter. It is clearly established from the above that the bus no.AP 9Z-5805 driven by Sri M.A.Rasheed E.90078 has dashed scooterist. Therefore, it is found that the bus driver Sri M.A. Rashed E.90078 of Mehdipatnam Depot is found totally responsible for the accident which warrants suspension.” 8. From the above report it is clear that the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee found the petitioner responsible for causing the accident and recommended for his suspension. To this committee, the Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam Depot is the member. Therefore, it is clear that the Depot Manager, has already came to a prima facie opinion that the petitioner is responsible for the accident. The Depot Manager, 2nd respondent issued the charge sheet and the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry oﬃcer submitted the report dated 20.2.2001 and he has considered the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee Report of the Depot Manager, Rajendranagar Depot and Depot Manager, Mehipatnam Depot. Considering the said report and also taking into consideration other documents, the enquiry oﬃcer came to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for the accident. Based on the enquiry report, the ﬁnal orders of removal came to be passed. 9. It is to be noticed that in the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee, which found the petitioner prima facie responsible for the accident, the Depot Manager who issued suspension orders and eventual orders of removal, was a member. Therefore, the Depot Manager, who is the disciplinary authority has prejudged the case. It is well settled that no person can be a judge to his cause. Therefore, on this ground, the whole enquiry has to be treated as vitiated. In similar circumstances, i n MD.HASSON v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT-I [1], where the Depot Manager who is the disciplinary authority was a member of the accident enquiry committee, and at whose instance the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the enquiry oﬃcer relied on the said report, the learned single judge held that the whole proceedings are vitiated by bias and violation of the principles of natural justice. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under for better appreciation: “6. The entire enquiry into the matter is vitiated for the reason that the Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam Depot, who is the disciplinary authority in the instant case, could not have been a member of the accident enquiry committee. This totally prejudices the cause of the petitioner. Though this aspect was not raised speciﬁcally in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner submitted at the Bar that the entire case is built-up only on the basis of Ex.M-5 accident enquiry committee report, to which the Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam/disciplinary authority was a party. As such, basing any enquiry on the report submitted by the disciplinary authority is wholly vitiated and has to be set aside. 7. The requirement of natural justice is that a man should not be a judge in his own cause. If a man is to be a judge in his own cause, then the decision cannot be in good faith. Justice should not only be done, but should appear to be done and this is not a euphemism for Courts alone. It applies with equal vigor and rigor to all those who are responsible for fair play. It is a ﬁrmly established principle that justice should not only be done, but should seem to be done and justice can never be seem to be done, if a man acts as a judge in his own cause and he is himself interested in its outcome. This principle of natural justice also equally applies to the exercise of quasi-judicial powers. The fundamental principles of natural justice, applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, is that the authority empowered to decide must be one without bias towards one side or the other in the dispute. It is construed that one who has interest in the litigation, is already biased against the party concerned. In quasi-judicial proceedings, if the disciplinary authority himself enquired into the matter at preliminary stage and gave a ﬁnding that the delinquent employee was wrong, deﬁnitely it not desirable that such disciplinary authority should initiate the proceedings and take a decision in the matter. In the case on hand, the Depot Manager of APSRTC, Mehdipatnam Depot himself was a member of the Accident Enquiry Committee and gave a report holding, primarily, that the petitioner herein was at fault in the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the disciplinary authority could not have taken up the enquiry as a member of the accident enquiry committee and thereafter initiated the proceedings wherein reliance was placed upon the said enquiry report, is deeply vitiated on the principles of natural justice and as such, null and void.” 10. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noticed that the Depot Manager, who initiated the disciplinary proceedings was the member of the Accident Enquiry Committee, which came to the conclusion that the petitioner is responsible for the accident and the Depot Manager suspended the petitioner and initiated the disciplinary proceedings and eventually passed the order of removal. Further the enquiry oﬃcer considered the said report of the Accident Enquiry Committee and submitted ﬁnal report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The report of the Accident Enquiry Committee inﬂuenced the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer and the disciplinary authority predetermined the issue and imposed the punishment of removal from service. This is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, as no person can be a Judge in his own cause, as he will be interested in the result of the proceedings. 11. Secondly it is to be noticed that the criminal case ﬁled against the petitioner ended in acquittal. No doubt it is well settled that mere acquittal in the criminal case will not automatically entail the reinstatement into service or that the departmental proceedings also have to be closed, but at the same time, the disciplinary authority also has take into consideration this aspect also as one of the factors while imposing the punishment. In the present case, the criminal court acquitted the petitioner of the charges by judgment dated 22.1.2001 and the petitioner was removed from service on 7.4.2001 and the appeal also came to be rejected on 16.5.2001. Hence, the disciplinary authority has not taken into consideration the real purport of the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case. Even apart from this, as noted above, on the ground that the Depot Manager who initiated the departmental proceedings was the member of the Accident Enquiry Committee, which found the petitioner guilty and the said report of the Committee was considered by the enquiry oﬃcer while submitting the report and also the eventual order of removal was also passed by the Depot Manager, the impugned order of removal is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal lost sight of this aspect and conﬁrmed the order of removal passed by the Corporation. 12. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned award and consequently the order of removal passed by the respondent – Corporation are set aside at the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and without back wages and without attendant benefits for the period for which he was out of service. 13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs AVS ------------------------------------ 30—10--2008 [1] 2003(4) ALT 450