Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.S.Narayana vs The Depot Manager on 8 August, 2024
APHC01009314200
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH [3457]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.19056 OF 2005
Between:
D.S.Narayana ... PETITIONER
AND
The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,
Kakinada and another. ...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.A. Razak
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada
Ld. Standing Counsel for respondent No.1
The Court made the following order:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually and the
learned standing counsel for the first respondent corporation.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 04.05.2004 in I.D. No.78
of 2002 passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, to the extent of denial of
back wages to him. The petitioner, while working as a driver, caused a fatal
accident on 04.05.2000. The enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was
imposed with the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner
exhausted his appeal and review remedies available before the appropriate
authority in vain. The petitioner filed I.D. No.78 of 2002, wherein the Labour
Court has considered the evidence and found that the punishment of removal
from service is disproportionate to the charges after having gone through the
enquiry report.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court
to the various paragraphs of the enquiry report and submits that there was no
proved negligence on the part of the petitioner causing the accident and that
the cyclist himself lost control and dashed against the bus, resulting in fatal
injuries.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the
judgment dated 31.07.2001 in C.C. No. 364 of 2000 on the file of the IV
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, and submits that the
petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and as such, the petitioner is
entitled to back wages and further submitted that the tribunal found the
termination of the petitioner was illegal.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent corporation submits that
the enquiry officer found the petitioner was negligent and as such, he was
imposed with the punishment of removal from service. It is also submitted that
the petitioner has been reinstated in pursuance of the orders passed by the
Labour Court. The learned counsel for the first respondent also submits that
there was a lack of anticipation on the part of the petitioner when the cyclist
was not negligent in causing the accident.
6. A case in C.C. No.364 of 2000 registered against the petitioner was
adjudicated on merits. Vide judgment, dated 31.07.2001, the learned IV
Additional Magistrate, Kakinada, acquitted the petitioner under Section 255 (1)
Cr.P.C. As seen from the judgment, the prosecution has failed to adduce the
evidence of eyewitnesses and as such, the learned Magistrate has acquitted
the petitioner herein under the benefit of doubt. Considering the same, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the award, as no valid grounds are set
out to set aside the findings of the Labour Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH. N
BV
