Driver v. Assam State Transport Corporation

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in absence of relevant do cuments being furnished to the delinquent, prejudice had to be presumed and the enquiry had to be held to be vitiated. In this regard, learned counsel for the a ppellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Ben gal State Transport Corpn. Vs. Sapan Kumat Mitra and others [(2006) 2 SCC 584].

#12. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. We have considered the rival submissions.

#13. It is patent that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge of negligence was held to be established by pre-ponderence of probabilities, af ter weighing the circumstances. In these circumstances the finding of the enquir y officer could not be held to perverse and was not liable to be interfered with . No prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant in view of proved c ircumstance of instant death of six persons and injuries to many other passenger s. The circumstances negatived the plea of defective brake system put forward by the appellant. The enquiry report is not based on preliminary enquiry but on ev idence recorded during the enquiry with due opportunity to the appellant to cros s-examine the witnesses and lead defence evidence. There is, thus, no violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The judgment relied upon is dist inguishable on facts. Learned Single Judge rightly held, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble S 14. upreme Court referred to by learned Single Judge, that this Court does not sit i n appeal over factual finding recorded by enquiry officer and standard of proof required is not of criminal trial.

#15. ew taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the vi