Telangana High Court
WP/1615/2004 of R.V.Raju, E-205903, Vs The APSRTC, rep.by its M.D., on 30 December 2010
L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1615 OF 2004 ORDER: Petitioner is working as Driver in the Bhimavaram Depot of APSRTC. On 07-04-2000, while he was driving the bus on the route from Visakhapatnam to Bhivaram, an accident occurred at Tuni, resulting in death of two persons. Based on that, a
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.1615 OF 2004
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.
ORDER:
Petitioner is working as Driver in the Bhimavaram Depot ofAPSRTC. On 07-04-2000, while he was driving the bus on the routefrom Visakhapatnam to Bhivaram, an accident occurred at Tuni,resulting in death of two persons. Based on that, a charge sheet,dated 20-04-2000, was issued to the petitioner. He submitted hisexplanation on 04-05-2000. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 3[rd] respondentappointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting the domestic enquiry,the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, holding that the charges areproved. Taking the same into account, the 3[rd] respondent passed anorder, dated 21-08-2001, imposing punishment of reduction by twoincremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The period of suspension is directed to be treated as not on duty forthe purpose of leave and increments. The petitioner availed theremedies of appeal and review before the concerned departmentalauthorities, but without any success. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner andSri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.
3. The petitioner does not dispute that fatal accident, leading todeath of two persons, has occurred when he was driving the bus. Whatever be the explanation, the very fact that the driving of the bus bythe petitioner is the immediate cause for the death of two individuals, is a matter, serious enough, that warrants severe punishment.
The 3[rd] respondent taken the correct view of the matter and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order.
4. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
December 30, 2010.KTL