"...to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in
the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the order of removal from
service dated 24.07.2014 and also the 2nd respondent proceeding
dated 29.11.2014 in so far as deferring annual increment for a period
of (2) years with cumulative effect besides treating the period as not
on duty as arbitrary, unjust in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently I pray this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the deferred increment
duly treating the removal period as on duty along with all
consequential benefits..."
PK, J
2. Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
joined the services of respondent Corporation as a Driver on 24.05.2010,
and his services were subsequently regularized w.e.f., 01.09.2013. While
so, , the petitioner was erroneously placed under suspension and issued
with a Charge Sheet dated 08.08.2014, alleging that on 30.04.2014 at
about 09-00 hours, he had driven the bus in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed causing the fatal accident of one pedestrian, who
had suddenly come onto the road from the left side. However, the
petitioner had immediately taken the vehicle to the right side to evade
the collision, but the pedestrian himself invited the accident by coming
in contact with the front left-side bumper of the vehicle, resulting in his
demise. In response to the Charge Sheet, the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 22.05.2014, denying the charge, while explaining the
above facts. However, without considering the same, an enquiry was
ordered, wherein, the Assistant Manager (Traffic) deposed that the
pedestrian was crossing the road suddenly duly talking on the
cellphone, and it was his negligence that resulted in the collision. It is
further submitted that the Service Conductor deposed that he had come
PK, J
to know about the accident when the petitioner stopped the bus
suddenly. Further, the petitioner, in his defense, categorically deposed
that the pedestrian was talking on the cellphone and suddenly jumped
from the road divider and a lorry, passing by, had hit him, resulting in
the accident. However, without considering the same, the enquiry
officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge solely basing on the
preliminary enquiry report and the Accident Committee Report, which
was never furnished to the petitioner. As such, the action of the enquiry
officer is wholly illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
However, without considering the facts of the case, the petitioner was
erroneously removed from service vide proceedings dated 24.07.2014
issued by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before respondent No.2 and on considering the same, the
petitioner was granted reinstatement vide proceedings dated
29.11.2014. However, the punishment earlier imposed was modified to
that of postponement of annual increment for a period of two years with
cumulative effect. It is further submitted that a criminal case vide
C.C.No.684 of 2014 was registered against the petitioner, which ended
in his acquittal vide judgment dated 21.04.2015. As such, it is clear
that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner herein for the said
PK, J
accident. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition by
setting aside the punishment order with all consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, on filing of a counter affidavit, submits that the
petitioner, while performing his duties on 30.04.2014 with bus bearing
No.AP 10 Z 9241, had caused an accident at Ragannaguda, at about 09-
00 hours, resulting in the demise of a pedestrian. As such, a criminal
case was registered against him vide FIR No.363/2014 on the file of the
Vanasthalipuram Police Station, dated 30.04.2014. Thereafter, the
disciplinary authority of the respondent Corporation, while placing the
petitioner under suspension, issued a Charge Sheet dated 08.05.2014,
for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation. However, having
been dissatisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered, and
the after conducting a detailed enquiry, by giving reasonable opportunity
to the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated
07.07.2014, holding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Thereafter, the said enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner
for his objections/comments. However, no fresh valid points were raised
by the petitioner. As such, basing on the enquiry report, the petitioner
was issued with a show-cause notice dated 16.07.2014, calling for his
explanation as to why the punishment of removal from service shall not
PK, J
be imposed upon him. In response, the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 23.07.2014. The disciplinary authority has gone
through the entire material evidence and the explanations submitted by
the petitioner, and imposed the punishment of removal from service vide
proceedings dated 24.07.2014, which is just and proper for the proven
misconduct.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal
before respondent No.3, which was rejected vide proceedings
No.ST/19(207)/2014-DVM-HYD dated 14.08.2014. Subsequently, the
review petition was also considered and rejected by the concerned
authority vide proceedings No.PA/586(253)/2014-HR dated 19.09.2014.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before respondent No.3
on 10.10.2014, and the authority, despite holding that the petitioner
was responsible for the accident, had taken a lenient view in the matter
since it was the first removal in his service, and purely on humanitarian
grounds, has granted reinstatement, by modifying the punishment to
that of postponement of annual increments for a period of two years
with cumulative effective vide proceedings dated 29.11.2014, besides
treating the period of removal as not on duty for all purposes. It is
further submitted that the acquittal in criminal case has no bearing on
the disciplinary proceedings, which conclusively ended with the
PK, J
imposition of the punishment much before his acquittal. Further, the
petitioner had approached this Court without first availing the
alternative remedy of raising an Industrial Dispute before the competent
Labour Court. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ
petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident
that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of driving the bus in
a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, resulting in collision with a
pedestrian, causing his demise. A detailed departmental enquiry was
conducted, wherein, the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved
beyond reasonable doubt, and basing on the enquiry report, the
petitioner was imposed with the punishment of removal from service
vide proceedings dated 24.07.2014. The respondents have specifically
asserted that the petitioner had earlier preferred appeal and review
against the removal proceedings, which were considered and rejected
vide proceedings No.ST/19(207)/2014-DVM-HYD dated 14.08.2014 and
No.PA/586(253)/2014-HR dated 19.09.2014, respectively. It is upon
consideration of the mercy petition filed by the petitioner dated
10.10.2014, that respondent No.3 has a taken a lenient view on
humanitarian ground and granted reinstatement. However the
PK, J
punishment of removal was modified to that of postponement of annual
increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide
proceedings dated 29.11.2014, besides treatment of the removal period
as not on duty for all purposes.
7. It is trite law that the scope of judicial review in matters
concerning disciplinary proceedings and punishments is highly limited
and the Courts usually refrain to interfere in such matters, unless
procedural infirmities or violation of the fundamental rights are
manifestly found or if the punishment so imposed upon the delinquent
is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. The Hon'ble
Apex Court, in Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath 1, had
reiterated the scope of judicial review/interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The following is a relevant excerpt of the said
decision.
"24. To sum up the legal position, being fact-finding authorities,
both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are
vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming
part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate
and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the disciplinary
authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on
the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the
misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the
High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily
reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect
1 (2024) 20 SCC 402
PK, J
of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is
so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the
conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for
other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran [Union of India v.
P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554] . If the
punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that
shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the
disciplinary/appellate authority may be called upon to reconsider
the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which
need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to
impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons
therefor.
...
30. We are unable to commend the approach of the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench. There was no good reason for the
High Court to have entered the domain of the factual aspects
relating to the evidence recorded before the inquiry officer. This was
clearly an attempt to reappreciate the evidence which is
impermissible in exercise of powers of judicial review vested in the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of
the opinion that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench, fell into an error by setting aside the order of
dismissal from service imposed on the respondent by the
disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority."
8. In the instant case, the charge leveled against the petitioner was
conclusively held proved, resulting in his removal from service.
However, the revisional authority, while dealing with his mercy petition,
has already taken a lenient view, on humanitarian grounds, and granted
reinstatement, by modifying the punishment to that of postponement of
annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect,
besides treating the period of removal as not on duty for all purposes.
PK, J
9. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to take further
lenience in the matter and interfere with the impugned proceedings
dated 29.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3. As such, the present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition,
shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
Date: 26.03.2026.
GSP
