THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Writ Appeal No.1041 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant was appointed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., in the year 1989, and was allotted to Kamareddy Depot. On 23.11.2010, he was issued a charge sheet, alleging that on account of his rash and negligent driving of service between Bheemgal and Kamareddy, on 10.11.2010, a pedestrian died on the spot. The appellant submitted his explanation, and not satisfied with the same, the 4th respondent ordered departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that the charges against the appellant are proved. Taking the same into account, the 4th respondent passed an order, dated 17.09.2011, removing the appellant from service. Appeal preferred before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nizamabad, was dismissed, on 06.01.2012. A revision was filed before the 2nd respondent. Through order, dated 05.05.2012, the 2nd respondent has set aside the order of removal, and imposed the punishment of stoppage to two increments with cumulative effect. He has also directed that the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement shall not be treated as ‘on duty’. Aggrieved by the punishment so imposed, the appellant filed W.P.No.8028 of 2013. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition, through order, dated 22.03.2013. Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri H.Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
The appellant does not dispute that a pedestrian died, on being hit by the bus driven by him. Though at one point of time, the appellant sought to project the deceased as a mad person, the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent, recorded a clear finding to the effect that there was gross negligence on the part of the appellant in driving the bus.
A fatal accident involving a vehicle would tell upon the negligence or indifference on the part of the driver. The issue becomes acute, when the vehicle is a passenger bus, which has to make frequent trips. For all practical purposes, it can be said that the 2nd respondent has taken pity upon the appellant and granted the relief of reinstatement into service by imposing the punishment of lesser degree. We are not at all inclined to interfere with the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years, with cumulative effect. However, the direction as to the manner in which the period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement must be treated has some ramifications. It is not clear as to whether the 2nd respondent intended to bring about any break in service. However, the effect would be only that and the appellant would be denied the benefit of service of about a quarter century rendered by him. Some modification is warranted in this regard.
We, therefore, partly allow the writ appeal, by modifying the direction to the manner in which the period between the date of removal and date of reinstatement must be treated to the effect that it shall not result in break in service, but the appellant shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit, including that of increments for that period. To be more precise, we direct that the said period shall be counted for calculating the retirement benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.
Date:14.07.2014
GJ