Heard Sri v. Manoj

behalf of the petitioner, and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The netitioner aoproached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Order dated 17.O5.2023 passed in Industrial Dispute No. B0 of 2O2L by the Hon'ble Labour Court-I, Hyderabad (5'r' Respondent) and published by the 6th Respondent on L7.08.2023 bearing G.O.Rt.No.394 and confirmed the removal order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the 4th Respondent quash and set aside the same holding as illegal, without authority of law, arbitrary, and consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all consequential service benefits and also declaring the same as voilative of Article t4 & 2l of constitution of India and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...." ? SN..' \\'.P.No.29ll5 of 202J 3 Thr: case of the Detitioner in brief as ner the support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The petitioner was appointed as a contract driver on

27.O4,20,10 in the respondent corporation and regularized on

01.09.20'.3. The petitioner served sincerely without any complaint or accident until 2019. ii) On 26.08.20L9, while the petitioner was driving bus bearing N,:. TS0BZ OO19 from Medchal to Udayagiri, a pedestrian suddenly ,tdt'I'l€ onto the road near Udayagiri R&B Bungalow and collided with the bus. The petitioner immediately stopped, called the ambulanCe, and informed the poliCe. The accident occurred to the pedestrian's negligence, not the petitioner's fault. iii) However, the 4th respondent suspended the petitioner, ConduCted a domestic enquiry, and removed him from Service on

11.09.202r). The appeal and review filed by the petitioner were rejected. The petitioner raised I.D. No. B0 of 2O2t before Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, which was dismissed on 17.05.2023 and published vide G.O.Rt.No.394 dated 17.08.2023. Aggrieved by the same, :he petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3 SN,J W.t'-No.29225 of 2023

4. (A) The relevant portion of the charoe sheet dated D ..CHARGE: "For causing a Fatal accident on 26.08.2019 at about 06.30 hrs at Dattu lur-x- roads, Udayagiri with a pedestrian crossing road from left to right, the bus hitted the person at left side front while proceeding from Medchal to Udayagiri, operating on service No.l37/2 resulting death of the pedestrian Sri Epligunta Raja aged 45 years resident of BC colony, Udayagiri due lack of anticipation and negligence driving which constitutes to serious misconduct under Reg.28 (ix) (b) of TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs.1963." "Hence, a Show Cause Notice for removal from service was issued vide reference gth Cited and a copy of the same sent by RPAD to the residential address & same was acknowledged by driver vide reference 10th 4 SN,J W.P.No.29225 of 2023 c ted, and submitted a representation requesting to extend i0 days to submit the explanation vide rr:ference 11th cited instead of submitting an e.<planation to SCN within the stipulated period he has failed to do so. In this circumstances, I have perused tl'e entire case with available evidence/witnesses on record and I do not find any reason to modify the ar;tion when earlier removal from the services of the Corporation which is fit and proper to be imposed on driver as the charge is severe in nature besides treating the Suspension period as 'Not on duty for all purposes." ((l) The relevant portion of the oroceedinos vide No.PA/19(10) r2O21-RM/SR dated 3O.OZ.2OZt of the Reoional Manager, Secunderabad Region, Telanoana State Road Transoort Corooration to the petitioner, is extracted hereunrler: "P€,rused the review petition, the evidences available on records of the accident case, As per the available evidences on records, the service Driver failed to take precautions when he noticed through vision mirror one pedestrian crossing road from left to right, he would have taken precautionary measures to avert the accident. His lack of anticipation cau:;ed a loss of human life. Had the driver driven the veh cle cautiously, slowly with anticipation on his part .l {! t. I 5 SN,J W.P.No.29225 ot2023 while operating the bus duly observing the movement of the road users, the accident would have been averted and precious life would have been saved. The petitioner, as a responsible driver of heavy passenger vehicle should be very cautious while driving the bus, keeping in mind the other road users in and around him. The charge leveled against the driver is held proved in the detailed enquiry. In his review petition he has not put forth any valid reasons worth consideration to consider his review petition. I do not find any reasons to interfere into the orders of DM/MDCL. Hence, the Revision petition is hereby REJECTED." fnl Tha ralarrani nrraaaadinac ttiAa No.PA/19(2O)/202O-DVM: KG dated 31.12.202O of the Divisional Manager, Kushaiquda Division, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation to the petitioner, is extracted hereunder: "It is a case of fatal accident, which resulting in death of one (01) person, the charge leveled against the service driver was proved in the detailed enquiry and all the available evidence are against him. In his appeal he has not put forth any valid reasons for to consider his appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere in to the justification of DM/MDCL; hence, the appeal is hereby REIECTED. 6 sN,J W-P-No.29225 of 202-l A Review petition lies within the Regional I'lanager SR within two (2) months from the date of r'lceipt of these proceedings, through DM/MDCL Depot. Receipt of these proceedings shall please be a,:knowledged." (E) The releva nt rrrrrtion the imouoned avvard ID I "Therefore the respondent has categorically esl.ablished that the petitioner has driven the vehicle in ras,h and negligent manner and hit a pedestrian thereby caused fatal accident which took away the precious life of i)ne person. Thereby the charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved and since the misconduct corimitted by the petitioner has very grave, the action tak3n by the respondent in removing the petitioner frorn the service of the respondent corporation vide pro:eedings dt.11-9-2020 under Ex.M31 is found legal, just and proportionate to the gravity of misconduct conrmitted by the petitioner. Therefore this Court did not find any merits in the contention of the petitioner. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed." t I 7 SN,J W.P.No.29225 of 2023 N "[21.] Further, with regard to the accident cases three ingredients shall be established by the prosecution one is rash and negligent driving of the accused, due to rash and negligent driving of the accused the alleged incident was occurred and the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident but here in this case PW4 who is said to be an eye witness to the alleged incident and he never deposed about the involvement of the accused in this case, rash and negligent driving of the accused and due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused only the alleged incident was occurred. Hence the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in my considerable opinion there is no cogent and reliable evidence In the testimonies of PW's 1 to 5 to implicate the complexity of the accused in commission of offence. [22.] Hence, for going discussion the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is settled law the prosecution has to prove the allegations levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, if any lacuna in the case of prosecution the benefits shall be given to the 8 SN,J W.P.N0.29225 of 2023 iccused. Hence, this point is answered in favor of accused person and against the prosecution. [23.] IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guitty for tlre offence under section 304 (A) of i.p.C and a,:cordingly he is acquitted under section 255 (1) C-.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be stand cancel after expiry of 6 months urrder section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. No property produced before this court. Hence no order as property.', G) r "I respectfully state that as per the enquiry report subrritted and the material placed on record would show that the Petitioner has not followed minimum road sense, preci:ution to avoid the accident was not exercised, which took a precious life and also damaged the image of the corporation in general public. Therefore, the action taken agairst the Petitioner is just and proper. Further, the misconduct which was committed by the petitioner is very grave and established after a detailed domestic enquiry when:in the petitioner was provided with all opportunities under principles of natural justice to defend his case. Furtht:r the disciplinary action taken is in proportionate to the gr?vity of misconduct committed by the petitioner and I 9 SN,J W.P.No.29225 of 2023 which is legal, valid and proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. "

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in the criminal case registered against the petitioner under Section 304(A) IPC, the petitioner was acquitted with a clear finding in his favour that there was no cogent or reliable evidence in the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5 to implicate the petitioner or to establish his guilt. The testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5 did not prove the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence, and the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petitioner was found not guilty of the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that, although the finding in the award dated L7,05.2023 in I.D. No. B of 2O2l was that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit a ( l0 sN,J W.P.No.29225 of 2023 pedest'ian, thereby causing a fatal accident, the Criminal Court in its iudgment dated 08.11.2023 passed in C.C. No. 385 of 2019 (pertaining to C.C. No. 66 of 2019 of Udayagiri potice Station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, clearly held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the three essential ingredients required to prove an offence of rash and negligent driving were not established in this case namely: (i) that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner; (ii) that the alleged incident occurred due to such rash and negligent driving; and (iii) that the petitioner was the drive r of the crime vehicle at the relevant time. The Criminal Court further observed that p.W.4, who is claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident, never deposed about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged act of rash and negligent driving, and therr:fore the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the allerged offence was not proved.

7. Lea-ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further cc,ntends that the petitioner is entitled for grant of the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition in view of the clear verdict dated 08.11.2023 passed in C.C. No. 385 of 2019 SN,J \\r.P.No.29225 of 2023 (pertaining to C.C. No. 66 of 2019 of Udayagiri Police Station) on the file of the ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, which is in favour of the petitioner

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. I and 4, contends that the misconduct committed by the petitioner is very grave and was established after a detailed domestic enquiry, and that the petitioner lacked minimum road sense and failed to take necessary precautions to avoid the accident. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order, and the same warrants no interference by this Court. DISCUSSON AND CONCLUSION:

9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was removed from service vide the proceedings of the Depot Manager, Medak Depot dated 1"1.09.2020, with immediate effect, for the petitioner's involvement in a fatal accident case after considering the representation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice for removal of the petitioner from service issued on 1t.02.2020. Instead of submitting an explanation to t2 SN,J \\'.1'.No.29225 of 202J the show-cause notice dated 11.02 .2020, the petitioner submitterJ a representation dated 22.02.2020 seeking further extensior of time to submit the explanation. Upon perusal of the entire ca:;e record, the Depot Manager, Medak Depot, found it fit and propt:r to impose the major penalty on the petitioner as the charge is severe in nature besides treating the Suspension period as 'Not or duty for all purposes'.

10. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 1i.09.2020 before the Divisional Manager, Kushaiguda Division was also r:jected vide proceedings dated 31.12.2020, reiterating the same t'indings as in the order dated 11.09.2020 namely, that the chargt: levelled against the petitioner was proved in the detailed errquiry and that there was no reason to interfere with the procer:dings of the Depot Manager, Medak Depot dated

11.09.2020 removing the petitioner from the service of the Corporatiorr with immediate effect. The review preferred by the petitioner against the removal order of the Depot Manager, Medak Dep,ot dated 11.09.2020 was rejected by the Regional Manager, Secunderabad Region vide proceedings dated 'j :1 d e I r3 SN,J W.P.\..n.29225 of 2021

30.07.2021, reiterating that the charge levelled against the petitioner had been proved in a detailed enquiry and that the petitioner had fa iled to put forth a ny va lid g rou nds for consideration of his review petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Industrial Dispute No. B0 of 2021 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad, and the said dispute was dismissed, holding that the respondent-Corporation had categorically established that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit a pedestrian, thereby causing a fatal accident which resulted in the loss of a precious life. Therefore, the action taken by the respondent- Corporation in removing the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 11.09.2020 was held to be legal, just, and valid.

11. A bare perusal of paragraph Nos. 21,22, and 23 of the verdict dated 08.1t.2023 passed in C.C. No. 385 of 2019 (Cr. No.66 of 2019 of Udayagiri Police Station) on the file of the ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri (referred to and extracted above), clearly indicates that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and that the three essential ingredients required to prove rash l4 SN..I \\'. ['. No. ]91 l-i of 201-] and negligent driving on the part of the accused were held as not establis;hed in the present case. L2. P s E T observerd as under: ''Challenging the order of the rearned singre Judge, the llrc has filed this writ appeal. we find no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned Counsel for the appellant-RTC. we have arready pointed out as to what charce was framed in the disciprinary enquiry against the petitirner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for (he srbstantive act of having caused death of the wife. The charge was only that petitioner uras involved in a criminal case ,rnd the said involvement had resulted in framing of a criminal case for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code. The argument of the rearned counser for the appell,rnt is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife was resurt of his delinquency. It is argued that in view of this admission of the pertitioner the disciprinary authority was justified in accepting the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidenc:e. we fair to understand as to how the statement of petitioner was rerevant in the instant case. The charge l5 SN,J \\ .P.No.29225 ol'202J -^ *lra -^-i-al nalilianar inclifrrlina : ariminrl was onlv for involvement in a criminal case resulting As soon as the criminal case itself was found to be untenable in Court of law, the very basis of the charge was knocked out. The charqe should have been quashed as and when the criminal case ended in acquittal. Involvement in a criminal case which was not tenable in Court of law can hardlv amount to any delinquency. It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial is different. But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinarv enquiry will In the facts and become unsustainable one. circumstances oF the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result of the criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's claim.

5. dism issed. " No other point was urged. The writ appeal is

13. A bare perusal of the charge sheet dated 05.09.2019 issued by the Depot Manager, Medchal Depot to the petitioner clearly indicates that on an allegation that petitioner was responsible for causing a fatal accident on 26.08.2019 at about r6 s\.., \\'.1'.No.29225 of 2023 06:30 hrs at Dattulur X Roads, Udayagiri which resulted in the death of a pedestrian one Sri Epligunta Raja aged 45 years, Crime NC,.66 of 2019 had been registered against the petitioner on the fil: of Udayagiri Police Station. But how€ver, vide verdict dated 08.11.2023 in C.C.No.3B5 of 2019 on the file of the learned ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, the petitioner was acquitted holding that the petitioner was not guilty for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC since the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonabl: doubt, with a very clear finding arrived at paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the said judgment in favour of the petitioner herein. B.rt the same, however, could not have been considered by the fifth respondent herein while passing the impugned award vide Indu:;trial Dispute No.B0 of 2021 dated 17.05.2023 of the Labour Corrt - I, Hyderabad since the Criminal Court's verdict in favour of the petitioner is dated 08.11.2023 which is subsequent to the pas:,ing of the Impugned order dated 17.O5.2023, passed in industrial Dispute No.B0 of 2021 on the file of the Labour Court - I, l-lyderabad. L4. This Court opines that in view of the fact as borne on record, anc as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in its i t. I t: I 1l S\.J \\'. P.\0.29225 ol' 20ll judgment dated 04.02.1999 passed in W.P. No. L24 of 1999 in A.P.S.R.T.C. and others vs. T. Venkatapathi, Ex-Depot controller, A.P.s.R.T.C., Srikalahasti (Andhra Pradesh) (CB) (referred to and extracted above), since the charge in the present case in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent on the result of the Criminal Case which itself ended in an acquittal in favour of the petitioner herein, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry as evident as per the charge sheet dated

05.09.2OL9 issued to the petitioner by the Depot Manager, Medchal Depot to the petitioner is an unsustainable one. Therefore, the Subject issue needs reconsideration by the Sth respondent herein.

15. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Labour, appearing on behalf of the respondents, t8 sN..r $.1'.\o.2922S of202J c) The order dated 0g.11.2023 passed in C.C.No,385/2O19 (Cr.No.66 of 2O19 of Udayagiri p.S.) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Udayagiri, (referrr:d to and extracted above), Wr o 2 r D n17 2 confirmi v d r d r 1 "it f o 2 T] h 4 e d t 1 s 1 Th h d 4 v d n r t r t f2 t n Tat J o Il n P 1 iri, l9 SN,J W.l'.Nr-r.29225 of 2023 the date of receipt of a copv of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if Efly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed Sd/-P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

7. B. 9. 10 derabad Director, The Managing (TSRTC), Bus Bhavan, Director, The Executive The R egional lvlanager, Secun The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Medchal Bus Depot, Medchal, Malkajgiri District The Presiding Officer, Labour Court - l, Nampally, Hydera[ad The PrincipaIsecretary Labour Employment Training and Factories Labour Department The State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad One CC to M/s. OlVl LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC] one CC to SRI THOOIM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC) IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies BN PMK -d{- c-' CC TODAY HIGH COURT L. DATEID:03/1 112025 ORDEIR WP.No.29225 of 2023 o t im 2r?[ I I * ,\ ,HS ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS tOs,i ,\f '