THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20215 OF 2014 Between:- D.S.N.Murthy.
…Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20215 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-APSRTC.
The petitioner was issued a charge sheet alleging that he caused the death of a lady by rash and negligent driving. Enquiry was held against him and the enquiry officer after considering the entire material available on record, held that the charges are proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner-driver of the bus from service. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one incremental stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect and directed his reinstatement. It was also held by the appellate authority that the period of suspension of the petitioner shall be treated as on duty. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Sri P.Venkateswer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the statements of some of the witnesses examined during the course of enquiry, wherein, they stated that the old lady was in a drunken condition and she dashed the bus. The enquiry officer, however took into consideration the statement of Sri J.Bhojya-conductor, wherein he stated that he went to the rear side of the bus and started issuing tickets, then the bus just moved and immediately people from outside shouted to stop the bus. Thereafter, he and some of the passengers got down from the bus and found the old lady with injuries near the front bumper of the bus. He further stated that they pulled the lady and gave some water and then rang up to 108, in which the old lady pedestrian was taken for treatment.
Considering the evidence as a whole, the enquiry officer was of the view that the petitioner who is the driver of the bus failed to observe the old lady crossing the bus on front side till touching the front bumper of the bus and accordingly held that the charge was proved against him.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.298 of 2011, whereby and where under the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 304- A of I.P.C.
Perusal of the said Judgment shows that the accused was acquitted on the ground that only investigating officer was examined in the said case and no witness was examined to speak about the incident; whereas, in the departmental enquiry several witnesses who were present at the time of the incident including the conductor of the bus were examined. Therefore, basing on the acquittal in the criminal case, it cannot be said that the charges were not proved against the petitioner in the course of departmental enquiry. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to substitute its opinion to that of the enquiry officer or the appellate authority. This Court shall interfere only if the findings are perverse or they are not based on evidence. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to take a different view to that of the enquiry officer in so far as the findings regarding the proof of charges against the petitioner.
As regards the punishment, in spite of the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charge of causing death by rash and negligent driving, the appellate authority modified the punishment of removal from service to reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to further reduce the punishment imposed by the appellate authority.
The writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 18-07-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.20215 OF 2014 Date: 18-07-2014 Shr.