WP/8524/2001 of K.M.Basha, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., on 31 December 2004

O R D E R:

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

The petitioner, who was working as Driver in respondent-Corporation,filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking to assail the impugned orderdated 04-11-2001, passed by the second respondent herein,withholding the other benefits while reinstating him into service withimmediate effect.

The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a Driversince 1985. However, in an accident, which occurred on 30-01-2000, though not fatal, a departmental enquiry was conductedagainst the petitioner and was ultimately removed from service.However, in the appeal filed against the said orders, the secondrespondent, though ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner intoservice, directed to reduce the pay to that of minimum of a DriverGrade II scale for a period of two years, which shall have effect on hisfuture increments also.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even bytaking into account the nature of accident as occurred, nothing canbe attributed or any negligence can also be pointed out against him.In fact, the petitioner tried to save the passengers and has taken allprecautions, but in spite of the same, the accident occurred.

The learned standing counsel appearing for respondent-Corporationsought to sustain the impugned action on the ground that havingregard to the damage suffered to the bus, the punishment imposed isjustified.

Considering the submissionsmade and also on perusal of materialon record, the question, which falls for consideration is whether,under the facts and circumstances, the punishment imposed inregard to the scale of pay to the minimum of Driver Grade II scale isjustified.

There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner had any remarksearlier as Driver and nothing has been attributed for any such similaracts. However, it is only in the accident, which occurred on 30-01-2000, the bus was damaged. Admittedly, there are no serious injuries, much less, any casualties as a result of such an accident.The petitioner, who was apparently trying to save the animals, whichwere coming from opposite direction, lost control over the bus and hitthe causeway wall, thereby resulting in the said accident. Even onmeeting of the facts and surroundings, such accident certainly showsthat the petitioner has taken greater care, which can be evident fromthe fact that it has not ultimately turned out to be a fatal one. In thecircumstances, the question of imposing such punishment in regardto the scale, though ordering his reinstatement, is not justified.Further, reducing of pay to the minimum of Driver Grade II scale for aperiod of two years is quite a serious and substantive one and it hasno nexus to the gravity of the offence as alleged. Taking intoconsideration the totality of circumstances, it would suffice, in theinterest of justice, to award withholding of one increment rather thanimposing reduction of pay to that of minimum of Driver Grade II scalefor a period of two years.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed partly, setting asidethe punishment of reduction of pay to minimum of Driver Grade IIscale for a period of two years and there shall be stoppage of oneincrement. No costs.

Lrkm.

31-12-2004.

___________________

To

1. The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,

Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah District.

3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,

Proddatur Depot, Proddatur,

Cuddapah District.

4. 2CD copies.

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