M.A.Sathar,Nizamabad Dist vs Apsrtc,Rep. By Its Managing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2768 Tel

         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

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.

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

(2013) 10 SCC 324

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

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