Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Kukatpally ... vs R.Gonya, Hyderabad And Another on 13 October, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11720 OF 2007
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"To issue a certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Award dated 17.08.2006 made in I.D.No.60/2004 by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, published on 15.11.2006 in G.O.Rt.No.2158 dated 18.10.2006, directing the petitioner to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service and other benefits except back wages, and quash the same as being bad, illegal, without jurisdiction, and invalid."
2. Heard Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the petitioner, Sri S. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.
3. Brief Facts of the Case:
(i) The 1st respondent was initially appointed as a casual driver in the petitioner-Corporation on 27.05.1999 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.2000. While performing his duties, on 14.01.2004, he was involved in a fatal road accident near Gumpula 2 Village, Suryapet at around 9:30 a.m., while driving Bus No.AP11Z 113 on the Vijayawada-Hyderabad route. The accident involved an auto-
rickshaw bearing No. AP21V265, in which one passenger died and three others sustained serious injuries. A criminal case was registered under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC.
(ii) A charge sheet dated 20.02.2004 was issued to the 1st respondent, framing the following charges:
[
(a) "For having caused Fatal accident while driving the Vehicle No.AP11Z113 Metro Express Bus coming from Vijayawada to Hyderabad resulted in 3 Auto passengers seriously injured and one Auto passenger named Sri Bullaka Buchatah aged 50 years died on the way to Hospital, Hyderabad on 14.01.04 at about 09:30 hrs at Gumpula village near Suryapet which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) APSRTC (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963."
(b) "For having driven the Vehicle No.AP11Z 113 Metro Express in a rash and negligent manner without taking precautionary measures and lack of anticipation resulted in serious injuries to 3 Auto passengers and death of an Auto passenger on 14.01.04 at about 09:30 hours which is misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963."
(c) "For having tarnished the image of APSRTC by causing the Fatal accident which is mis-conduct in terms of 3 Regulation 28(xxxii) of APSRTC (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963."
(iii) The 1st respondent submitted his explanation, which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice. Witnesses were examined in his presence, and the 1st respondent was afforded full opportunity to cross-examine.
He expressed satisfaction with the enquiry process. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved.
(iv) Based on the report and after considering the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, the disciplinary authority passed final orders removing him from service by order dated 07.07.2004.
(v) Aggrieved by the removal, the 1st respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered as I.D.No.60 of 2004. The Labour Court, by Award dated 17.08.2006, while accepting that the accident occurred due to the 1st respondent's failure to take precautions despite sufficient road space, nonetheless held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the auto-rickshaw driver. It therefore directed reinstatement of the 1st respondent with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, excluding back wages.
4
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court erred in holding that the accident was not solely due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and in attributing contributory negligence to the auto driver. It is contended that the 1st respondent, being the bus driver, failed to exercise due caution, which was a primary cause of the accident. Despite such findings, the Labour Court directed reinstatement, which is impermissible.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the Award dated 17.08.2006, the 1st respondent was reinstated and posted to Mushirabad Depot by order dated 11.12.2006, but the Corporation has not implemented the directions regarding continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, except back wages.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the Labour Court rightly passed the impugned Award and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
7. The Labour Court, in its Award dated 17.08.2006, observed as follows:
"The scooterist and auto driver took a sudden decision to avoid an accident and at that juncture, the accident occurred. But removal of the petitioner is absolutely on the higher side in the present case. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case to exercise discretion to interfere with the 5 extreme punishment of removal from service. The order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority does not disclose any past misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, they have not considered the attending circumstances of the present case. There is contribution on the part of the scooterist in causing this accident and it is not solely due to the negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in service since 1999. Keeping in view all the circumstances and in pursuance of Exs.M.11 to M.22 and Ex.W, the Labour Court is inclined to set aside the removal order dated 07.07.2004 and direct reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits except back wages."
8. The Labour Court considered the circumstances of the accident and rightly observed that the incident was not entirely due to the fault of the 1st respondent alone. The sudden decision of the scooterist and auto driver also contributed to the accident. In that context, the Labour Court held that the punishment of removal was excessive.
9. Though the Labour Court did not exonerate the 1st respondent entirely, it observed that as a bus driver, he ought to have taken additional precautions. However, taking into account his long years of service, lack of past misconduct, and the contributory negligence of others involved in the accident, the Labour Court exercised its discretion to modify the punishment.
6
10. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the Labour Court's discretion. The reinstatement has already been effected, though the direction regarding continuity of service and other benefits remains unimplemented, pending this Writ Petition.
11. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court rightly passed the impugned Award dated 17.08.2006 directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service with all other benefits, except back wages. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 13.10.2025 HFM