M. Sreenaiah, vs The Executive Director Ghz Jbs,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4121 Tel

      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                      W.P. No. 4848 of 2013
ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents' corporation.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue a writ,

order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in

imposing the punishment of deferment of the petitioner's

annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative

effect and also treating the period from the date of removal to

the date of reporting duty as not On-Duty for all purposes as

bad, arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents

to treat the proceedings dated 28.07.2012 of the 1st

respondent as reinstatement of the petitioner with all

consequential service benefits and further direct the

respondents to allow the deferred increments to the petitioner

which were lost in concerned with the above proceedings.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

WP_4848_2013 2 SN,J

a) The petitioner was appointed as driver on 12.12.1995

and his services were regularized on 01.03.1999 and since

then he worked to the utmost satisfaction to the superiors in

the respondent corporation.

b) While the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP

11 Z 2486 on route Ibrahimpatnam to Tadiparthy, on

25.12.2011, and when taking right turn near the Ambedkar

Statue at Yacharam, a car came from opposite side in wrong

direction, meanwhile, one pedestrian observing the same,

stepped back by over looking the bus, hit the bus and fallen

down. At that time, the bus was at 5 kmph speed and hence,

there is no chance for rash and negligent driving on the part

of the petitioner. Due to negligence on the part of the

pedestrian, the petitioner cannot suffer with the punishment.

c) The petitioner received removal proceedings dated

02.04.2012 on the allegation of careless driving and caused

for fatal accident. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal

before the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division against the

said removal proceedings, but the same was rejected on

31.05.2012.

                                                           WP_4848_2013
                               3                                  SN,J




d)    The petitioner filed revision petition before the 2nd

respondent i.e. Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region, but the

same was also rejected on 25.06.2012.

e) Finally, the petitioner filed a Revision Appeal to the 1st

respondent - Executive Director (GHZ) and the same was

considered on 28.07.2012 ordering re-instatement and set

aside the removal order, but modified the punishment to the

extent of deferment of annual increments for two years with

cumulative effect and further clarified that from the date of

removal to the date of reporting duty as not on duty for all

purpose. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The respondents specifically stated in their counter that

the accident occurred, enquiry had been conducted, appeal

had been filed by the petitioner, removal order passed against

the petitioner, revision petition filed by the petitioner and

punishment modified to the extent of deferment of two annual

increments with cumulative effect and further orders were

passed treating the period from the date of removal to the

date of reporting duty on reinstatement shall be treated as

'not on duty' and the petitioner was posted at Bandlaguda

Depot and the same was accepted by the petitioner and that WP_4848_2013 4 SN,J

the petitioner was reported to the duty on 24.08.2012.

Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Perused the record.

6. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 09.07.2015 in

C.C.No.129 of 2014 in Old C.C.No.299 of 2012 referred to and

brought on record at the request of learned counsel for the

petitioner, which is the judgment of the Court of XII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R.

District at para 12 reads as under:

"The most ingredient of Section 304-A IPC is that the prosecution has to prove that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Here in this case, though it is proved that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle, it is not proved that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused and he caused for the accident. The prosecution failed to prove the most important ingredient of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. As such the accused is liable to be acquitted."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that in view of

the fact that it has not been proved that there is rash and

negligent driving on the part of the petitioner and since it is WP_4848_2013 5 SN,J

not proved the petitioner caused accident, the writ petition

should be allowed as prayed for.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

contend that the judgment in C.C.No.129 of 2014, which is in

favour of the petitioner is a judgment based only on

technicalities and the witnesses having turned hostile and

further that the departmental proceedings and proceedings in

criminal case are two different proceedings and hence, they

cannot be equated, and that there are clear findings of the

primary authority that the petitioner failed to take necessary

precautions to prevent the accident.

9. This Court taking into consideration the fact that

the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and

considering the fact that the petitioner's length of

service is 17 years as on the date of imposition of

punishment and further taking into consideration the

clear finding of the trial Court that there is no rash and

negligent driving on the part of the petitioner herein

and that it is not proved that the petitioner caused the

said accident, this Court opines that the punishment

imposed on the petitioner should be modified and the WP_4848_2013 6 SN,J

same is accordingly modified from deferment of annual

increment for two years with cumulative effect to

deferment of annual increment for two years without

cumulative effect. This Court, however, observes that

the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits

or arrears of monetary benefits.

10. With the above observations, the writ petition is

disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 11.08.2022 Kvrm