WP/5975/2021 of The Depot Manager, Vs Depot Secretary, on 31 December 2024

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records pertaining and related to award passed in I D No 80 of 2017 dated 27.08.2019 on the file of the Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court Ananthapuramu and declaring the same as arbitrary illegal and contrary to the law and consequentially quash the same and to pass…” Certiorari call for the records pertaining and related to award passed in I D No 80 of 2017 dated 27.08.2019 on the file of the Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court Ananthapuramu and declaring the same as arbitrary illegal and contrary to the law and consequentially quash the same and to pass…”

2. It is grievance of the petitioners is that the 1[st] respondent while he was performing his duty on 25.07.2010 on bus bearing No. AP1128959 plying on the route Sitanagaram to Rajamahendravaram an accident was occurred, due to which, a lady passenger died on the spot and another lady injured. Basing on the same, the Corporation has conducted preliminary enquiry and framed charge sheet on 13.08.2010. Thereafter, the 1[st] Respondent has submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. Basing on the enquiry report, the 1[st] respondent was issued show cause notice of removal on 31.01.2011. The appellate authority has considered the appeal of the claimant and reinstated into service substituting the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide order dated 6.5.2011 and suspension period is treated as Not on Duty. Further, the 1[st] respondent preferred a Review petition before the 3[rd] respondent and the same was rejected vide order dated 29.08.2012 on the ground of time bar. Later the 1[st] respondent raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D No.80 of 2017 before the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam challenging the punishment imposed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, who is 2[nd] petitioner herein. The 2[nd] respondent has allowed the said I.D. and set aside the proceedings of the 2[nd] petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners-Management.

3. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

4. On hearing, learned Standing counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the Award of the 2[nd] respondent in setting aside the proceedings issued by the appellate authority is illegal and arbitrary. The action of the 1[st] respondent resulted in a fatal accident, contrary to Regulation of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) REg. 1963 and as the punishment was justified based on the seriousness fothe offence, 1[st]respondent is not entitled for the relief sought for. He submits that the Award of the 2[nd] respondent dehors jurisdiction and the findings of the same are perverse and opposed to the very spirit and nature of Indian Evidence Act 1872 though it rightly affirmed the charged against the 1[st] respondent. He further submits that the 1[st] respondent has failed to submit proper explanation to the charge sheet or challenge the initial charge sheet. He further submits that the Corporation has followed proper disciplinary procedures and provided the 1[st] respondent with opportunities to defend himself during the enquiry. Therefore, the award passed by the 2[nd] respondent is contrary to the settled proposition of law as the punishment imposed by the appellate authority after following the procedure cannot be interfered with and set aside the punishment imposed by the petitioner herein and it cannot re-appreciate the evidence as the driver involved in accident. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the Award passed by the 2[nd] respondent..

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioners, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the material on record.

7. On a perusal of the material, it is observed that, the 1[st] respondent is driver and performed duty with bus bearing No.AP 11Z 8959 on route Seethanagaram to Rajahmundry on 25.7.2010. Near Katavaram at about 09.00 hrs., the bus dashed two lady passengers who are waiting for the bus causing instantaneous death of one lady and severe injuries to another lady. Later, a preliminary enquiry was also conducted. Basing on the same, the 1[st] respondent was terminated from the service on 15.12.2011 imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as Not on Duty. Aggrieved by the same, the 1[st] respondent raised an I.D.No.80 of 2017before the Industrial Tribunal and the same was allowed setting aside the order of the appellate authority, which is challenged in this writ petition.

8. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal after considering the material and as per the ruling in V.Ramana vs. APSRTC & Ors.[1], held that the court should not interfere with the administrative decision of the employer unless it was illogical or suffered from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. This Court further observed from the impugned order that, wherein it was observed that, in consideration of the available evidence before the Criminal Court which is stronger than the Domestic Enquiry report, since it was based on investigation report and gives a clear picture of accident and the management failed to consider the same and went unilaterally while imposing the punishment 1 2005 LLT 1089

and the punishment is shockingly disproportionate in view of lack of any evidence and requires to be set aside the findings of the Domestic Enquiry Officer and the punishment to that effect are hereby set aside. By observing the same, the Tribunal, while allowing the I.D., has held that “the action of the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry by imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as NOT ON DUTY in respect of Sri M.M. Ganapathi, Driver, E-601122, Rajamahendravaram is not justified and the same is hereby set aside.”

9. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, there is no illegality or perversity in the Award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant petition, devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

Date : -12-2024

_________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Gvl

Gvl

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITON No.5975 of 2021

Date : 31.12.2024