Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

'For having failed to follow the traffic rules and driven the bus with high speed and also rash and negligent of your duty caused fatal accident to bus No.AP11Z1104 on 31.12.2002 at about 14.30 hrs., on route Tirumala - Badvel which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxix)(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.' The workman having submitted his explanation participated in the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Manager (Enquiry), R.M's Office, Kadapa. After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority stating that the charge leveled against the workman was proved. After receiving the objections of the workman, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice proposing to impose a penalty of removal from service of the Corporation with immediate effect. The workman submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice. Having not been satisfied with the said explanation, the Disciplinary Authority passed final orders, dated 3 MSRM, J WP.No.31721 _2017 05.05.2003, imposing the afore-stated proposed punishment. The appeal preferred by the workman was rejected by the appellate authority - Divisional Manager, Proddatur vide his proceedings, dated 28.06.2003. The workman's review petition was considered by the review authority, Regional Manager, Kadapa. And, the said authority, having observed that the said authority is inclined to give the workman one more chance only on humanitarian grounds with the hope that he will never give room for such type of accidents in future, ordered that the workman - ex-driver be appointed as driver Grade-II afresh with immediate effect and that on such appointment as driver Gr.II afresh he be posted to Rayachoti Depot. The workman was further advised to report to the Depot Manager, Rayachoti, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the review proceedings and that failing compliance by the workman, the appointment afore-stated shall stand cancelled. Aggrieved thereof, the 1st respondent Union which is espousing the cause of the workman raised an industrial dispute. The said dispute was referred by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, vide proceedings no.D1/529/2014, dated 19.03.2014, under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On such reference, the case in ID.No.51 of 2014 was taken on file by the Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu. The 1st respondent Union filed a claim statement and the Corporation filed its counter.

7. The case of the Corporation is this: - 'The charge leveled against the workman is established in an enquiry that was duly conducted. His appeal was rejected. His request in the review application that he is entitled to reinstatement with all attendant benefits after setting aside the orders passed by the officers of the Department was not considered; however, on humanitarian grounds and with the hope that he will not give any room for accidents in future a direction was given for his appointment as driver-Grade II afresh with immediate effect. Therefore, the order of the Regional Manager, who passed the orders in the review application, consists of two parts. First part relates to the confirmation of the order of removal. Second part relates to direction for appointment as a fresh candidate that too on humanitarian grounds. The order of removal is no bar for appointment as a fresh candidate. The Regional Manager, on humanitarian grounds and with the hope that the workman will not cause similar accidents, in future, gave a direction to appoint the workman 5 MSRM, J WP.No.31721 _2017 as a Driver Grade II afresh. The Tribunal failed to maintain a distinction between an order of the review authority which consists of two parts and an order of the review authority which interfered with the punishment imposed and modified the same. The learned Chairperson of the Tribunal ought to have noticed the distinction and ought to have noted that the review authority's order in the case on hand is in two parts and that the said authority did not modify the punishment, but, confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. So long as the order of punishment stands, it cannot be said that the punishment is interfered or modified and, therefore, the direction issued for appointment of the workman afresh, as a fresh candidate, cannot be construed as modification of the order of punishment or interference with the punishment. Hence, the question of raising a contention that the punishment viz., 'appointment as Driver Gr.II afresh' is not covered by the regulations does not arise for consideration. The punishment of removal from service is confirmed by the review authority; however, on humanitarian grounds, the workman, who was an ex driver, was directed to be appointed afresh as Driver Gr.II. In those circumstances, the Award of the Tribunal and the consequential GO are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

8 MSRM, J WP.No.31721 _2017

10. As rightly contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, it is no doubt true that the order passed by the Regional Manager/review authority consists of two parts: First part relates to confirmation of the punishment imposed against the workman viz., removal from service; Second part relates to a direction for appointment as a fresh candidate viz., Grade II driver, on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, it is no doubt true that the punishment of removal from service is not interfered with and is not modified by the review authority; however, considering the workman as an ex-driver, a direction was given on humanitarian grounds for his fresh appointment as Driver Gr.II, with the hope that the workman will not cause similar accidents, in future. Therefore, it is not a case where the punishment of removal from service is interfered with and modified by the review authority. Therefore, the contention that the punishment imposed is not one covered by the regulations of the Corporation is not open to the workman. Hence, this Court finds that the Award of the Tribunal doesn't deserve to be sustained on the ground that the review authority imposed a punishment of fresh appointment which is not within the regulations. The above view of this Court finds support from the decision in P.Habeeb sahib (1 supra) rendered by a Division Bench of this Court.