M.Basivi Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by a Driver, who was working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘APSRTC’), questioning the proceedings dated 13th May 1999, passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.Dy.CTM/GNT, to the extent adverse to him.

2. During the year 1998, the petitioner was working as a Driver in APSRTC and was attached to Guntur-II Depot. On 4th November 1998, while he was driving the bus bearing No.AP-10Z-4132 on the route from Guntur to Vijayawada, it met with an accident infront of Nagarjuna University main gate. In the said accident, several passengers were seriously injured and the bus was damaged extensively. Attributing negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge sheet dated 2nd December 1998 was issued by framing the following two charges : “1. For having driven the vehicle No.AP-10Z-4132 of Guntur-II Depot in a speedy and negligent manner on route Guntur – Vijayawada OMS on 4-11-98 with the result, the vehicle dashed directly to the left side road tree by head on collusion at Nagarjuna University main gate Reg.No.28(ix)(a), (xxix) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. misconduct constitutes

2. For having lack of anticipation and judgement the vehicle dashed directly to the left side road tree by head on collusion on 4-11-98 and caused heavy damages to the vehicle sent to Zonal work for CO attention which shop Vijayawada constitute misconduct under Reg.No.28 (ix) (a) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” Though the petitioner has filed his explanation to the said charges, on the ground that the same was not convincing, a regular inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry officer. In the domestic inquiry, the inquiry officer, after following the due procedure contemplated Regulations, has recorded a finding that the accident was on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, who drove the vehicle without controlling the speed inspite of speed breakers infront of the main gate of Nagarjuna University. In the inquiry report, it is also stated that the said accident has resulted in severe injuries to several passengers apart from extensive damage to the bus belonging to the Corporation. In view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, by inviting comments of the petitioner and by issuing a show cause notice to him, the order dated 19th April 1999 was passed in Proceedings No.01/2(19)/98-GNT.II, by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Depot Manager, Guntur-II Depot, removing the petitioner from service. As against the said order of removal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Guntur. Even the appellate authority has concurred with the findings of the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority, but however, looking at the service record of the petitioner from the date of his appointment in the year 1991, by recording a finding that the earlier record of the petitioner was satisfactory, has taken the lenient view and ordered for reinstatement into service subject to certain conditions.

3. The said order of appellate authority to the extent adverse to the petitioner, is questioned in this writ petition, mainly on the ground that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted as per the Regulations. It is the further case of the petitioner that there was defect in the functioning of the steering of the bus, which resulted in accident, but there was no negligence on his part.

4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. While generally denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that there was no procedural lapse in conducting inquiry, and as a matter of fact, it was found during the domestic inquiry that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that though the disciplinary authority has passed the order of removal, but however, the appellate authority has reconsidered the quantum of punishment, looking at the best service record of the petitioner and ordered for his reinstatement. It is the case of the respondents that there is no ground to interfere with the said findings.

5. With reference to the allegation of the petitioner that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Regulations, the same cannot be the ground to question the validity of the impugned order at this stage. After preliminary inquiry, in his explanation to the show- cause notice, the petitioner has not stated that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Regulations. The inquiry officer, who has given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has recorded a finding that the accident was caused on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. A copy of the inquiry report is also placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The inquiry officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has categorically found and recorded a finding that inspite of speed breakers infront of the main gate of Nagarjuna University, the petitioner could not slowdown the vehicle and due to hitting the speed breakers at a high speed, the accident has occurred as the vehicle swore to the right side and hit a tree. It is also stated that due to such negligent act of the petitioner-Driver, several passengers were severely injured and also extensive damage was caused to the bus belonging to the Corporation. In view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the petitioner cannot assail the validity of the impugned order merely on the ground that the preliminary inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Regulations.

6. Coming to the next contention of the petitioner that the accident had occurred due to a defect in the steering system of the bus, but however, after considering the said plea of the petitioner, the inquiry officer has found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle, but the accident was the result of negligent driving by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is not for this Court to examine the said issue. As much as no procedural irregularity is alleged in the process of conducting inquiry, which is in accordance with the Regulations, it is not open for this Court to consider such factual aspect at this stage, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellate authority has considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically by looking at the best service record of the petitioner and has taken a lenient view by ordering his reinstatement. This Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity impugned orders passed by respondents, warranting interference of this Court for grant of any further relief as prayed for in this writ petition.

7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd December 2008