APHC010569202012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6843/2012 Between: D.s.r. Murthy, ...PETITIONER AND The A P S R T C and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC,PNV) 2. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC PNV) The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in deleting the name of the petitioner from the approved list without holding any enquiry and the proceedings dated 15.09.2006 are challenged along with proceedings dated 24.11.2006 and 24.12.2011 which were passed confirming the order dated 15.09.2006. 2 3. The petitioner was initially engaged on a contract basis in February 2005. The petitioner caused a fatal accident on 20.08.2006. An enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was removed from the list of contract drivers. Aggrieved by the proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 24.11.2006. The Revisional authority also rejected the petitioner's case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No. 625 of 2006 after trial by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam. It is submitted that the petitioner when found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC the order of removing the name of the petitioner from the approved list of drivers would have to be set aside. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation submits that the petitioner’s engagement was on a contract basis and Condition No.8 of the engagement order makes it clear that the involvement of the contract driver in driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner would also result in terminating the contract without any notice. It is also submitted that the departmental action and the criminal trial are different. It is also submitted that in the departmental enquiry it was found that the petitioner was terminated on account of misconduct by invoking clause 8 of the contract of engagement. 3 6. The petitioner ought to have approached the competent Labour Court to redress his grievance without invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings by filing the writ petition. Perusing the judgment in C.C.No.625 of 2006 would indicate that the prosecution failed to adduce cogent evidence for holding the petitioner guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The eyewitness did not support the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. 7. Be that as it may, the appropriate forum for redressing the grievance of the petitioner is not the High Court. The petitioner ought to have approached the Labour Court and submitted all evidence and adduced evidence before the Labour Court for seeking the relief of the reinstatement or any other relief. The Labour Court is the competent authority to record evidence, mark exhibits, and pass a detailed award on merits. This Court cannot adjudicate the issue by going into the merits or demerits of the disciplinary authority. 8. With these observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.01.2025 PNS 4 5