HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1652 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both sides. The appellant herein is a driver working with the second respondent-Corporation. In this appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, the appellant seeks to assail the orders in W.P.No.12011 of 2002 dated 08/07/2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by him where he sought for a writ of certiorari assailing the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent herein i.e., Labour Court-I in I.D.No.19 of 1999 dated 30/10/2001 which was published in the gazette on 30/01/2002 as bad and illegal. Briefly, the facts which gave raise to these proceedings are that the appellant herein was initially appointed as a driver in May, 1991. While he was driving the bus on 10/04/1998 proceeding from Vijayawada to Hyderabad and when he reached near Kothangoor village at 6 AM, one lady suddenly came from the left side of the road and dashed on the left side back portion of the bus and fell down and died on the spot. Following the said accident, a charge sheet dated 28/04/1998 was issued to the appellant herein with the following charges: “1. For having caused fatal accident while driving AP 9Z 8474 on 10/04/1998 resulting in the death of a lady padestrain named Smt.Vadepally Balamma, w/o.Nagaiah, R/o.Mahaboobnagar District near Kattangur at about 0:00 hours on 10/04/1998 besides minor damages to the service bus, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 20 (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963; and 2. For having driven AP 9Z 8474 in a rash and negligent manner lacking anticipation on Vijayawada to Hyderabad route and causing fatal accident near Kattangur village at about 06:00 hours on 10/04/1998 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix) (a) & (b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” Thereafter, a regular enquiry was held and ultimately on 02/11/1998 an order of removal was passed. The appellant has raised an industrial dispute which has been taken up as I.D.No.19 of 1999 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, which was enquired into and ultimately an award was passed on 20/11/2001 rejecting the reference without granting any relief. Hence, the writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge though several contentions appear to have been raised on behalf of the appellant both on the factual side and also on the correctness of the punishment imposed, the learned Single Judge while taking into account various chequered events, especially, taking note of the fact that the applicant has filed a memo under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’) accepted the departmental proceedings. Further, it was also pointed out by the learned Single judge that in the enquiry, except a bare statement on his behalf, nothing has been rebutted by him. Even the witness who has been examined on behalf of the management viz., M.S.Reddy was not cross-examined. It is also found that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant for cross- examination of the said witness but he did not choose to do so. Therefore, having regard to such evidence available on record, the Labour Court did not find it appropriate to interdict the finding of fact which has been given by the enquiry officer in the absence of any rebuttal or perversity as such. Similarly, the learned Single Judge also found that on the face of it the findings of fact based on the aforesaid evidence and the documents marked on behalf of the management in Exs.M-1 to M-18, there exist no reason to interfere with any such finding of fact. In support, the learned Single Judge sought to place reliance on the U.P.State Road Transport Corporation v. A.K.Parul[1] wherein it was held that powers of the High Court under Article 26 are quite narrow and limited and would not include the interference on all such facts. Therefore, it was held that the enquiry officer rightly held that the charges which have been framed against the appellant are proved and hence, it does not call for any interference. Hence, dismissed the writ petition. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously sought to contend by taking this Court through the proceedings and also on the factual matrix that it is to be seen that even taking into account the nature of the accident occurred, since the lady suddenly came across the bus and as a result of which accident occurred and she died and therefore, there being nothing against the appellant for personal attribution and it cannot be said that he is responsible for the said charges. However, on considering the material available on record, we are of the view that as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge except making a denial in the explanation, there is no serious participation on behalf of the appellant during the course of enquiry. It is to be found that except examining himself and giving statement no other material is put forth on his behalf in rebuttal. Even the witness examined on behalf of the management was not cross-examined. There is absolutely no reason as to why the appellant could not participate in such enquiry having taking part by duly producing necessary evidence for and against. Similarly, even before the Labour Court, the appellant himself had filed a memo under Section 11-A of the Act to contend that he is not disputing the correctness of the procedural aspect of the domestic enquiry. Thereupon, apparently, in view of the filing of the memo by the appellant herein under Section 11-A of the Act, the appellant has come to very narrow arena where both sides totally failed to adduce any evidence. Primarily, before the enquiry officer no serious participation by the appellant and secondly, no evidence on his behalf or on behalf of the management on whom prima-facie burden lies. Hence, it is not open for the appellant herein to raise any contention on facts and to say that the finding of fact is not correct. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that such finding of fact is perverse or otherwise vitiated. We are constrained to observe that normally, in these types of cases, the employees who have been faced with such serious charges and also the nature of punishment, do not allow proper evidence in the domestic enquiry or even in the Labour Court by taking recourse under Section 11-A of the Act. It only leads to total avoidance of factual enquiry from both sides and thus, there should not be any complaint at later stage. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the above appeal nor any question of law is involved. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances and especially, taking into account the age of the appellant and this being the first incident in his service, we leave it open for the respondent-Corporation to consider his case for fresh appointment. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 03rd March, 2010 SKM [1] AIR 1999 SC 1552