Telangana High Court
M. Damodar, Nalgonda District vs The Honble Labour Courti, Hyderabad 1 on 6 June, 2022
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO.12182 OF 2004
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.43 of 1996, dated 07.01.2001 on the file of the first respondent and denying attendant benefits, back wages and imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and notional increments to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the award and grant attendant benefits, back wages, annual increments and notional increments etc. and pass such other order or orders as this Court deem fit and proper.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 2nd respondent depot in the year 1978. On 22.03.1992, when the petitioner was driving the bus bearing no. AP 9Z 3944 on route Kaleshwaram to Hyderabad, an accident took place at Rangapur Village Temple, at about 13.45 hours, resulting in the death of one person on the spot and twenty other passengers sustained injuries. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Reg.28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963 and the petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter an enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner was 2 PMD,J W.P.NO.12182_2004 held guilty of charges levelled against him. Thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from the service. On 03.11.1992, after exhausting the channels of appeal and review which are both rejected by the officials, the petitioner raised in Industrial Tribunal before Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, in ID.No.43 of 1996 and the removal order was modified, but without attendant benefits, back wages and wages. The further punishment of the withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect and notional increments of the petitioner was imposed.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said order, on the major ground that the criminal case filed against the petitioner in C.C.260 of 1992 before the First Class Magistrate, Sultanabad, has ended in an acquittal of the petitioner and therefore, the punishment awarded to him in the departmental proceeding also has to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition, while the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation only supported the order of Labour Court as no counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. Having gone through the order of Labour Court, it is noticed that the Labour Court has given the following finding 3 PMD,J W.P.NO.12182_2004 that "in the absence of skid marks, it is clear that the petitioner was not driving the bus in a high speed and no proof for apply of sudden brakes". It is stated that one motorcyclist was coming in the opposite direction, and the petitioner had taken the bus on left side for giving more place to the motorcyclist and after passing the motorcycle, he took the bus to the right side of the road and applied brakes as the gravel road was at lower level i.e., 6 inches from tar road and the bus went on to the tar road and then he attempted to take the bus to right side of the road for which he applied brakes, but the vehicle fell down and hit a tree. The finding of the Labour Court is thus clear that the accident has not occurred due to any fault of the petitioner, but was due to the motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction and the petitioner has taken due care to avoid the accident to the motorcyclist. There is also a finding given that the place of accident is a turning point and that the road was uneven road and the gravel road which is abutting the tar road was at lower level and therefore, the petitioner was not found to be at fault for the accident and when such findings was given by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should have only reinstated the petitioner into service, but ought not to have imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.
4
PMD,J W.P.NO.12182_2004
5. In view of the same, this Court deems fit and proper to set aside the punishment order and direct the respondents to make payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with an interest of 6% thereon from the date of removal till the date of payment.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Dated: 06.06.2022 bak 5 PMD,J W.P.NO.12182_2004 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NO.12182 OF 2004 Dated: 06.06.2022 bak