HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 10921 OF 2000 Thursday, the Second Day of December, Two Thousand and Ten Between The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram Depot, Vizianagaram District Petitioner AND Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, Rep.by its Presiding Officer and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questions the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.111 of 1998 dated 27.8.1999 and its publication in G.O. Rt.No. 2124 dated 20.11.1999 as illegal and consequently to quash the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent who was driver at Visakhapatnam Depot, had caused accident while driving the bus bearing No.AEZ 5646 on 27.2.1993, in which a six years old girl was run away by the front right wheel of the bus and she sustained grievous injuries on her right leg. Departmental enquiry was conducted and following charges were framed against the second respondent: 1. For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ 5646 which was operated by you on the Vizianagaram – Kumili route on 27.2.1993 in a negligent manner without taking precautionary measures. As a result of which, a six year of old girl Noobothu Appayyamma d/o Rajanna, was run over by the FOS tyre of the vehicle which at Kumili village at about 12.30 hours. The ill-fated victim sustained grievous injuries on her right leg. The charge comes under misconduct vide Regulation No. 28(ix.a) (ix.b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For having driven the vehicle with lack of anticipation and caused the betided accident at Kumili village at about 12.30 hours on 27.2.1993 while you were driving the vehicle No. AEZ-5646 on the route Vizianagaram - Kumili on 27.2.1993. The charge comes under misconduct vide Regulation 28 (xxxi) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having caused much inconvenience to the traveling public and loss of revenue in an accident at Kumili village at about 12.30 hours on 27.2.1993 while you were driving the vehicle No.AEZ-5646 on the route Vizianagaram – Kumili on 27.2.1993. The charge comes under misconduct vide Regulation 28(ix.a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said charge memo and after conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report and based on the enquiry report, the Depot Manager issued a show cause notice indicating the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and proposed to treat the period of suspension as not on duty. The petitioner submitted explanation and after considering the explanation, it was stated that the explanation is not convincing and accordingly confirmed the proposed punishment vide final order dated 26.8.1993. Questioning the said final order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 111 of 1998 after four and half years and the Industrial Tribunal considering the legality of the enquiry report, had declined to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the report of the Joint Accident Committee is based on conjectures and surmises. Various documents have been produced before the Joint Accident Committee. It is stated that as per the report given by the Depot Manager, the tyre ran over the right leg foot of the six years old girl and the width of the road is only 12 feet without any margin and the accident place is situated in the midst of the houses and the driver has taken all the precautions while getting out the bus through the road from the place of accident and the passengers gave statements that the driver was driving the bus slowly, but unexpectedly the girl came and crossed the road and the right leg of the girl touched the tyre and the driver stopped the bus immediately. There was no negligence or fault on the part of the of the driver and the driver did not cause accident, but on account of the girl coming unexpectedly, the accident occurred and the driver of the bus suddenly applied brakes and stopped the bus. Even before the Enquiry Officer, similar statements were given by the driver and the conductor. It is stated that the Joint Accident Report finding fault with the driver is contrary to the evidence available on record and the said Committee instead of relying on the statements of witnesses examined and the passengers, has considered irrelevant material. As the statements of independent witnesses, who are passengers, which is part of the record, was not at all considered by the Joint Accident Committee and the report submitted by the said committee is based on conjectures and surmises, the Tribunal did not accept the findings of the domestic enquiry and held that there was no fault or negligence on the part of driver. In fact, the driver was driving the bus very slowly and suddenly the girl crossed the road and touched the front tyre causing injuries to the right foot and thereafter the driver applied brakes immediately. It is further stated that in fact the criminal case registered against the second respondent – driver has also ended in acquittal and the compensation claimed on behalf of the victim minor girl was under no fault liability, as there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. Consequently, the Tribunal, while answering the reference in favour of the second respondent herein has passed the impugned Award. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not see any reason to differ with the consistent and cogent findings recorded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah December 2, 2010 MAS