APHC010533342012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32152/2012 Between: V. Anna Dorai, ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N M KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following Order : It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner while the petitioner working as a Driver caused accident on 13.10.2007 at about 03.30AM. One lorry which was coming in the opposite direction appeared all of a sudden and in order to avoid the lorry, the petitioner had to wheel the bus to the road side which resulted in collision of the bus with a tree on the road side. 2. The bus was damaged and the petitioner also sustained injuries apart from minor injury to one of the passengers. The petitioner WP.No. 32152/2012 was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 22.01.2010. Thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner and after, the petitioner submitted his explanation, and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer was held that the charges were proved and the 3rd respondent issued the proceedings dated 08.07.2010 removing the petitioner from service besides ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,750/-. The petitioner field appeal before the 2nd respondent on 15.07.2010 and the appellate authority, after considering the ten years of service of the petitioner without any incident or accident, as such set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement, however imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides treating the petitioner during which suspension period as ‘not on duty’. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent do not have imposed such a punishment when there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner was not responsible for causing the accident. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected without considering it on merits. It is also submitted that the petitioner incurred Rs.22,188/- towards medical and hospital WP.No. 32152/2012 bills and representations seeking for reimbursement of the said amount was not considered by the respondents. 4. The learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the charges were proved against the petitioner and that the petitioner was responsible for the cause of the accident and the damage caused to the bus, as a result, a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/corporation for getting it repaired. It is submitted that the appellate authority has taken a lenient view and reinstated the petitioner and that the punishment imposed is a just and necessary to ensure that the petitioner discharges his duty in a more careful and diligent manner. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, as seen from the enquiry proceedings, the accident occurred at 03.30AM in the morning and that the petitioner in order to avoid collision with the lorry which was coming in the opposite direction had to wheel the bus to the road side and the bus had colluded with the tree on the left side. The submission of the petitioner that had the bus colluded with the lorry, head on the accident would have been grave and many lives could have been lost and appropriately considered by the respondents that apart the statements of the passengers was not recorded by the enquiry officer which would have thrown more WP.No. 32152/2012 light on the incident of the accident. In absence of any statement of third party, the respondents grossly erred in holding the petitioner is solely responsible for cause of the accident. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.09.2010 to the extent of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed in part. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM WP.No. 32152/2012 193 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32152/2012 13.02.2025 KGM