Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Devarakonda ... vs M. Bal Reddy, on 18 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.25321 of 2014
And
WRIT PETITION No.6237 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
Challenge in these writ petitions is to the Award dated 10.09.2013
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, in I.D.No.21 of 2010. For
the sake of convenience of reference, the parties will hereinafter be referred
as they were arrayed before the Labour Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent
Corporation as Driver on 08.08.1997 and was regularized w.e.f.
01.01.1999. An accident occurred on 29.01.2008 when the petitioner was
on duty, driving the vehicle No.AP-10Z-5802 from Devarakonda to
Achampet, the petitioner had suddenly turned the vehicle onto left side,
due to sudden turning of an oncoming speeding auto with overload; and
the auto went into a culvert and fell into a ditch, and two passengers of the
auto died instantaneously, and four other passengers received grievous
injuries. The petitioner was suspended from service and a charge sheet
was issued by the respondent Corporation alleging rash and negligent
driving by the petitioner resulting in the said fatal accident. It is the case
of the petitioner that the Conductor who was the eyewitness to the
accident deposed that due to the fault of the auto driver, the accident took
place and the auto hit the culvert and consequently fell into the ditch
located on the side of road. Preliminary enquiry officer who has submitted
report on the basis of the statement given by the crew has deposed that
both the vehicle drivers were responsible, and based on it, the petitioner
was removed from service vide proceedings dated 14.05.2009. The appeal
and also the review petitions filed by the petitioner against the removal
order dated 14.05.2009 were also rejected. The petitioner approached the
Labour Court by filing ID No.21 of 2010. The Labour Court, by the
impugned order directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the
petitioner with continuity of service but without backwages. Challenging
the very reinstatement itself, the respondent Corporation filed WP
No.25321 of 2014; and aggrieved by the non-granting of backwages, the
petitioner filed WP No.6237 of 2015.
3. Heard Sri Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; and
Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-TSRTC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily contend that the
service conductor has clearly deposed that the accident occurred due to
the fault of the auto driver, and the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry
report on the basis of the statement given by the crew has deposed that
both the vehicle drivers were responsible. Learned counsel contends that
there is no evidence to substantiate such deposition and therefore the
enquiry is vitiated, and further the Labour Court concluded that the
charge leveled against the petitioner is not proved, however, the action of
the labour Court in denying the backwages from the date of removal from
service till the date of reinstatement. It is also contended that the
petitioner was unemployed from the date of removal i.e., 14.05.2009 till
the date of reinstatement i.e., 03.01.2014.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
Corporation would contend that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving and lack of anticipation on the part of petitioner, and that
in the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officer deposed that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver. It is further
contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent failed to
give opportunity to the petitioner after issuing Show Cause notice to the
petitioner. It is also contended that in fact keeping in view the principles of
natural justice, a copy of enquiry proceedings were supplied to the
petitioner vide letter dated 17.03.2009 calling for his objections on the
enquiry report, and the petitioner offered his objections on 30.03.2009;
and after the enquiry the charge leveled against the petitioner was held to
be proved and as the act of the petitioner amounted to serious misconduct,
a Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Registered Post to the
residential address of the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of
removal from service should not be imposed; and the petitioner neither
reported nor submitted his explanation to the Show Cause notice, and the
respondent Corporation passed the proceedings dated 14.05.2009
removing the petitioner from service; and the appeal preferred by the
petitioner to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nalgonda, was considered
and rejected as "Time Barred", vide proceedings dated 08.12.2009; and the
revision petition filed by the petitioner to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda,
also came to be rejected vide proceedings dated 12.04.2010. It is also
contended that mere exoneration from criminal case does not
automatically entitle the petitioner to reinstatement; and therefore the
impugned Award passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent
Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service is bad in law and the
same is liable to be set aside.
6. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the accident, a case was
registered by the Police, Dindi Police Station, in Crime No.8 of 2008 for the
offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337, 338 IPC.
During the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer examined the driver and
conductor of the bus; and the conductor of the bus deposed that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver when the bus
was coming in the opposite director, the auto driver turned the auto to the
left due to confusion and the bus driver also turned the bus to the left ,
and the auto hit the culvert and fallen into the ditch. It is further observed
by the Labour Court that the enquiry officer has examined only the driver
and conductor of the bus and the enquiry officer failed to examine the
other independent witnesses to know the truth of the case and the
respondent failed to give opportunity to the petitioner to examine material
witnesses and the enquiry officer failed to examine the passengers of the
bus and also the passengers of the auto or the driver of the auto, and the
respondent failed to give opportunity to the petitioner after issuing Show
Cause notice when it is the bounden duty of the respondent to give
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain about his grievance
before the Depot Manager, and the respondent failed to give the same as
per the records available. The criminal case tried before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Gowraram, also ended in acquittal of the
petitioner for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the Labour Court framed the
necessary points for consideration as to whether the punishment of
removal from service was justified, and as to whether the principles of
natural justice were followed while conducting domestic enquiry. The
Labour Court, after due enquiry and appreciating the evidence available on
record, and also considering the judgment of the High Court in
K.H.A.Swamy v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kukatpally; and Khemchand
v. Union of India, and also observing that there is no sufficient evidence
and good grounds to remove the petitioner from service, and punishment
of removal from service being shockingly disproportionate, held that the
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement of service, however, not entitled to
backwages.
7. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the
record, W.P.No.25321 of 2014 is dismissed; and W.P.No.6237 of 2015 is
partly-allowed by modifying the impugned Award only to the extent that
the petitioner shall be entitled to notional increment/s, while treating the
period of removal till reinstatement as continuity of service, however,
without backwages. The rest of the impugned Award dated 10.09.2013
shall remain intact. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka
18th July, 2024
ksm
