The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, vs The Gen. Sec., A.P.S.R.T.C. And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3119 Tel

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

            WRIT PETITION No. 21172 OF 2009

ORDER:

Award dated 14.02.2008 in I.D.No. 31 of 2006 on

the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad which directed

petitioner to release the increments to the 1st respondent by

restoring his basic pay duly setting aside the order of Depot

Manager and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction,

is questioned in this Writ Petition.

2. It is the case of the Corporation that the 1st

respondent was appointed as driver and his annual increments

were deferred one time for his misconduct prior to the present

punishment. It is stated that the 1st respondent was charge-

sheeted for having driven the vehicle bearing No. AP 9Z 184 on

15.07.1996 at 08.45 hours near Maruthi Nagar X Road while

operating on Route No. 100-M/R in a rash and negligent

manner with lack of anticipation and poor judgment which

resulted in death of a lady passenger Smt. Naramma who

attempted to board the bus from front door and came into

contact with front tyre of the bus which ran over her head. He

was inflicted with punishment of reduction of pay by two

incremental stages for two years with cumulative effect by order

dated 16.09.1997. The Appeal preferred thereagainst was

rejected. The 1st respondent without exhausting the remedy of

Review, straight away raised the present dispute before the

Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad wherein it was held that the

punishment imposed against the 1st respondent by the Depot

Manager, Dilsukhnagar was unjust and incorrect.

3. Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas

for the Corporation. He submits that the Labour Court having

held that domestic enquiry is valid ought not to have interfered

with the punishment and it amounts to giving premium on

misconduct. He submits that when negligence on the part of the

1st respondent was established, Circular dated 21.10.1991

cannot be applied and the punishment imposed by the 1st

respondent cannot be waived.

4. Heard Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent.

5. Perused the Award. The case of the 1st respondent

is that the statements given by passengers as well as service

conductor show that deceased was at fault and she tried to

board the bus when it was in running condition. Having issued

Circular stating that driver shall not be charged for the accident

which occurred due to passenger boarding or alighting at

unauthorized places or in moving buses, the Corporation has

framed the charges against the 1st respondent and later made

him liable for the death of a passenger. The Criminal Court also

acquitted the 1st respondent of the charger under Section 304-A

IPC on finding that no valuable evidence is available. Per

contra, the case of the Corporation is that Circular was issued

for granting increments. The Criminal Court decision has

nothing to do with the findings of the departmental enquiry. In

the criminal case, he was found not guilty as witnesses failed to

identify him, however, in the departmental enquiry, it was found

that the 1st respondent failed to observe the passenger getting

into the bus through the side view mirror and he started the

bus before he received instructions from the conductor. Though

he had caused fatal accident, he has not been removed from

service and was given a minor punishment of deferment of two

annual increments with cumulative effect.

6. In this regard, report of Joint Enquiry Committee

comprising of Depot Manager, Midahni and Depot Manager,

Dilsukhnagar gains importance. They found that as per the

report of the Chief Inspector and also the witnesses of the

accident, it is clear that the lady who died in the accident tried

to board the moving bus and in doing so, she lost her grip and

came underneath the FNS tyre and succumbed to the injuries

instantaneously. In the report, it observed that the driver had

put in 13 years of service in the Organisation and this is the

first fatal accident case and no other serious accident was

reported earlier. The accident occurred due to carelessness on

the part of passenger as she tried to board the moving bus and

fell down, hence, there is no need of placing the driver under

suspension. Further, the conductor, who was examined during

the enquiry stated that at the relevant time, bus was carrying

more passengers and there were passengers on both the foot

boards and some of the passengers including lady passenger

were trying to board the bus through both the doors. In such

situation, it may be difficult for the driver to observe the

passengers who were boarding the bus through view mirrors. In

view of the above and in the light of the fact that Corporation

itself noted that this is the first fatal accident reported against

the 1st respondent and no other serious case was reported

earlier against him, this Court is in full agreement with the

Award of the Tribunal setting aside the punishment imposed by

Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar. It is also appropriate to note

here that Corporation issued Circular dated 21.10.1991, in

clause (d), it is stated that 'in city or town services accident

occurring due to passenger boarding or alighting at

unauthorized places or in moving buses should not result in

issue of charge sheets'.

7. Taking into consideration the overall

circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition is

devoid of merit and the same is 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

12th October 2023

ksld