Telangana High Court
WP/5959/1997 of D.Vykuntarao Vs The Industrial-cum-Labour Court on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5959 of 1997 Between: D.Vykuntarao S/o.Mamulu, No.453118, Driver, Parvathipuram RTC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 5959 of 1997
Between:
D.Vykuntarao S/o.Mamulu,
No.453118, Driver,
Parvathipuram RTC Depot,Vizianagarm District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Industrial-cum-Labour Court,
Rep by its Chairman & Presiding Officer Visakhapatnam.
2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,
Parvathipurm, Vizianagaram.
3. The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram. APSRTC, Vizianagaram.
4. The Regional Manager,
APSRTC,Vizianagaram.
5. The APSRTC Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toMay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner asdriver with all the attendant benefits, w.e.f.10.4.92 by declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in passing an order Dt: 10-4-92 through his Proc.no.01/2(22)/91,removing the services of the petitioner from service as driver in APSRTC, which wasconfirmed by the 3rd respondent through his Proc.No.PA/20(43)/92, Dt: 20-10-92and also by the 4th respondent through his proc.No.PA/20(162)/92 Dt: 6-3-93 andalso the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the dispute raised by thepetitioner in I.D.No.135/93 by its order Dt: 25-9-95 which was notified by theGovernment on 15-2-96 through its G.O.RtNo.2892 as highly arbitrary, improper ,contrary to law , violation of the fundamental rights and the principles of Naturaljustice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.GAJENDER REDDY
Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P FOR LABOUR
Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: B.G.UMA DEVI (SC FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standingcounsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.
The petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation, filed this writ petition, inter alia, assailing the impugned award passed by the first respondentherein in I.D.No.135 of 1993 dated 25-09-1995, wherein the case of the petitionerwas rejected and the same was notified by the Government on 15-02-1996, throughG.O.Rt.No.2892.
The case of the petitioner is that he has been in service in the respondent-Corporation as a Driver since 13-03-1981. However, on 30-11-1991, while thepetitioner was driving the bus, an accident occurred at Chinabogili. Whereupon, hewas suspended on 18-12-1991 and a charge sheet was issued to him. Afterconsidering the petitioner’s explanation, the order of removal was passed on 10-04-1992 by the second respondent. The appeals and further revision application filedby the petitioner did not yield any result. Therefore, he raised a dispute before thefirst respondent under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which wastaken up as I.D.No.135 of 1993. The Tribunal has considered the matter andrecorded a finding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation is invalidand ultimately agreeing with the punishment imposed by the Corporation, dismissedthe I.D and passed nil award.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that having regard to thefact that there is a clean acquittal on the criminal prosecution launched against thepetitioner, in respect of the same accident, the respondent-Corporation ought not tohave imposed grave punishment, which has no nexus to the gravity of the offencemade against him.
Conclusion
The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation sought tosustain the impugned action on the ground that since the accident is fatal, thepunishment of removal of the petitioner from service by the respondent-Corporationis justified.
Considering the submissions made and also on perusal of the entire material onrecord, the only question, which falls for consideration is as to whether, in the factsand circumstances, the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service isjustified.
There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has been working in therespondent-Corporation since 1981 and has unblemished record in service. It is only as a result of the accident, which occurredon 30-11-1991, the present disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and ultimately led to removal of the petitioner from service. Whereupon, the petitioner’sappeal and review also did not yield any result and subsequently the disputereferred to the first respondent was also rejected. However, on a reading of theabove, it is seen that several aspects have not been properly taken into account,especially in view of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case videC.C.No.296 of 1991, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili as perJudgment dated 14-02-1995. Though it may not be binding or has a conclusiveforce, it should be taken as a whole as one of the relevant circumstances, withpersuasive value. Further, it is also to be seen that normally in respect of suchaccidents, the respondent-Corporation is not taking any departmental action againstthe persons. On the face of it, the imposition of punishment of removal of thepetitioner from service is unjust and has no nexus to the gravity of the offence asalleged. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent-Corporation isjustified in imposing such punishment.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside. Theimpugned action on the part of the respondent-Corporation in removing thepetitioner from service as per order dated 10-04-1992 and consequent ordersthereupon i.e., in appeal and review are set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstatedinto service with continuity of service, with entire back wages and also other benefitsto which he is entitled, under the Regulations. No costs.
______________________
31-12-2004.
Lrkm.
That Rule Nisi is made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Friday the ThirtyFirst day of December Two Thousand and Four.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
1. The Chairman & Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Depot Manager APSRTC
Parvathipurm, Vizianagaram.
3. The Divisional Manager
APSRTC, Vizianagaram.
4. The Regional Manager
APSRTC,Vizianagaram.
5. The Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
6. 2CCs to the G.P for Labour, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(O.U.T).
7. 2CD copies.