HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 16083 OF 2011
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the Award dated 20.12.2005 in I.D.No. 202 of 2003 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad concerning denial of attendant benefits and backwages even after setting aside the finding of enquiry officer on the charges.
2. Petitioner joined the service of state-owned Corporation as driver in 1996 through due process of selection and his services were regularised in 2000. While so, he was suspended from service on 17.01.2002 on the allegation that he caused an accident on 21.11.2001 while driving the vehicle bearing No. AP 10Z 9571. After conducting domestic enquiry, he was removed from service. Appeal and revision preferred thereagainst were rejected. Hence, petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute. Vide Award impugned, the Labour Court set aside the removal order dated 26.06.2002 and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, however, denied back wages and other attendant benefits during the intervening period.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that when once the Labour Court held that the 2 finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and when petitioner was also acquitted by the criminal Court on the very same allegation, there is no justification for the Labour Court to substitute the punishment. Once the disciplinary action is held as illegal, all the consequential benefits ought to be granted. He submits that Labour Court failed to assign reasons in support of its decision to deny backwages. According to him, the Corporation is bound to treat the interregnum period as 'spent on duty' along with all allowances as per Regulation 21 of APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations, 1967 and he was deprived of about five increments for no fault.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by petitioner as he failed to assess the movements of the vehicles, which resulted in death of pedestrian, injuries to scooterist and passengers in the bus and the bus was damaged due to hitting to a tree. The Labour Court had already shown lenience and set aside the order of removal, hence, denial of backwages and attendant benefits cannot be found fault with, emphasizes the learned Standing Counsel.
5. In this backdrop, the point for consideration is, is it permissible for the Labour Court to deny backwages and attendant benefits.
3
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments in particular Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) 1 time and again has been reiterating that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages is the normal rule. In this case, the petitioner also pleaded that he was not gainfully employed in the interregnum. Further, the criminal Court also acquitted petitioner for the charge under Section 304-A IPC. However, as seen from the material available on record and Award of the Labour Court, photos under Ex.M8 and sketch map under Ex.M1, it is clear that the accident occurred on the National High way No.7. After hitting the scooter, the bus travelled to a distance of 71.5 feet on the edge of the road and dashed the branch of the tree and later, the bus passed another 21 feet distance from the tree and dashed the pedestrian and caused the accident. It is apparent to the naked eye that bus was driven on extreme right and it was in the maximum speed. It is, no doubt, true that on the national high way, vehicles ply with speed, but however, the driver should be cautious and vigilant and with anticipation. The scooterist and pedestrian were in front of the bus and the bus was driven on the edge of the road by leaving the black top road about 122 feet, it shows that the petitioner was not vigilant to control the vehicle speed though he avoided collision 1 (2013) 10 SCC 324 4 with the opposite lorry. In the light of the same, the observation of the Labour Court that small negligence is involved on the part of the petitioner for failure to control the vehicle cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the accident claimed life of a pedestrian and injuries to others. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court had rightly denied backwages and other attendant benefits during the intervening period.
The contention of learned counsel that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings, hence, the Labour Court cannot substitute the punishment cannot hold water. Though the criminal Court acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 304-A IPC., that would not enure to his benefit. It is well-settled that 'the two proceedings, criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, whereas the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order 5 conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt", he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of "preponderance of probability". Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation'
7. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court and the Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 27th September 2023 ksld