APHC010039872007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. U. SURYA RAO,, S/O. LATE KASULAYYA, DRIVER E.NO. 90934, APSRTC, RAJAHUMUNDRY DEPOT, R/O. OPP: CHURCH STREET, KATAVARAM POST, SITHANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE DIV MANAGER ANOTHER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nture of Writ of Ceritoraricallig for the relevant records pertaining to ID No. 112/2003 dated 28-4-2006 on the file of the second respondent, published in G.O.Rt.No. 1319, dt. 7-6-2006 which culminates the impugned punishment awarded by the 1st respondent Corporation and quash the same; consequently direct the 1st Respondent Corporation and quash the same, Cons Respondent Corporation herein to release the increments of the Petitioner by treating the suspension period as on duty besides returning penalty of Rs. 1,000/- to the Petitioners and pass such other and further order or orders as this HOn'ble Court may deem fit and proper. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2820/2007 U. SURYA RAO,, S/O. LATE KASULAYYA, DRIVER E.NO. 90934, APSRTC, RAJAHUMUNDRY DEPOT, R/O. OPP: CHURCH STREET, KATAVARAM POST, SITHANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER AND THE DIV MANAGER ANOTHER, A.P.S.R.T.C., RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nture of Writ of Ceritoraricallig for the relevant records pertaining to ID No. 112/2003 the file of the second respondent, published in G.O.Rt.No. 2006 which culminates the impugned punishment awarded by the 1st respondent Corporation and quash the same; consequently direct the 1st Respondent Corporation and quash the same, Consequently direct the 1st Respondent Corporation herein to release the increments of the Petitioner by treating the suspension period as on duty besides returning penalty of Rs. to the Petitioners and pass such other and further order or orders as is HOn'ble Court may deem fit and proper. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI U. SURYA RAO,, S/O. LATE KASULAYYA, DRIVER E.NO. 90934, APSRTC, RAJAHUMUNDRY DEPOT, R/O. OPP: CHURCH STREET, KATAVARAM POST, SITHANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER A.P.S.R.T.C., RAJAHMUNDRY, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nture of Writ of Ceritoraricallig for the relevant records pertaining to ID No. 112/2003 the file of the second respondent, published in G.O.Rt.No. 2006 which culminates the impugned punishment awarded by the 1st respondent Corporation and quash the same; consequently direct the equently direct the 1st Respondent Corporation herein to release the increments of the Petitioner by treating the suspension period as on duty besides returning penalty of Rs. to the Petitioners and pass such other and further order or orders as RCJ, W.P.No.2820 of 2007 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 3615 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the above Writ Petition by fixing an early date and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A RAZAK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER Challenge laid in this Writ Petition is to the award dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.112 of 2003 whereby the action of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rajahmundry in confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry, of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of two (02) years which shall have an effect on future increments, was confirmed. 2. The facts, in brief, that led to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner, while driving an RTC Bus, in an attempt to overtake a lorry, lost control over it and hit a tree on the right side of the road. Based on the preliminary enquiry report of the Chief Inspector, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, for which he gave an explanation and thereupon domestic RCJ, W.P.No.2820 of 2007 3 enquiry was conducted and after its completion fresh show cause notice was issued and a punishment of reduction of two incremental stages with cumulative besides recovery of Rs.1000/- towards damage caused to the bus was imposed on the petitioner by the Depot Manager. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, who reduced the punishment to reduction of one incremental stage for a period of two years with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1000/- towards damages remained unchanged and the suspension period is ordered to be treated as not on duty. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Regional Manager, but the same was rejected confirming the orders of the appellate authority. Thereupon an Industrial Dispute was raised and the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which vide award dated 28.4.2006, confirmed the orders passed by the Regional manager. The order of the Labour Court was called in question in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Abdul Kalam Riyaz, learned counsel, representing Sri A. Razack, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 4. Sri Abdul Kalam Riyaz, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the findings returned by Labour Court RCJ, W.P.No.2820 of 2007 4 are without any supporting material and thus the order impugned is perverse. He would further contend that the accident occurred for no fault of the petitioner and as margin of the road was uneven the main spring of the bus broke down and consequently the petitioner lost control over the bus and therefore the accident was due to poor condition of the road and further due to breaking down of the main spring but not due to any rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. However, the preliminary, appellate as well as Revisional authorities without any supporting material erroneously concluded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner and the Labour Court, without application of mind, in a mechanical fashion confirmed the punishment awarded by the appellate authority. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing counsel would submit that the enquiry officer upon examining the petitioner, conductor as well as passengers of the bus and further upon observing the scene of accident gave report holding that the accident occurred due to high speed and failure of driver in applying breaks. He would further contend that the petitioner had been given every opportunity to defend his case and the appellate authority had rightly imposed punishment and the Labour Court had RCJ, W.P.No.2820 of 2007 5 rightly confirmed the same in the I.D. The writ petition is meritless and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Perusal of the impugned orders would give out that the Chief Inspector examined the petitioner, conductor and passengers of the bus and also the scene of offence. It is the categorical finding given by the Chief Inspector that the petitioner was driving the bus at a very speed and absence of any skid marks show that he did not apply breaks and had he applied breaks the accident would have been averted. It was also observed by the Chief Inspector that the main spring of the bus broke after it hit the tree and therefore the defence set out by the petitioner that since the main spring broke down due to uneven road margin the bus was dragged to right side and resulted in the accident was not true. Therefore, the preliminary and final enquiry reports clearly demonstrate that the accident occurred due to the rash driving of the petitioner, but not due to mechanical defect of the bus as projected by the petitioner. The Labour Court had rightly held that there are no reasons to defer with the findings of the enquiry officer as the same could be the only conclusion to be arrived basing on the material available on record. Therefore, the same does not require interference of this Court. RCJ, W.P.No.2820 of 2007 6 8. However, the punishment imposed on the petitioner of reduction of pay by one increment for a period of two (02) years with cumulative effect seems a little bit harsh and disproportionate to the irregularity committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the same needs modification and the ends of justice would be met if the punishment imposed on the petitioner is modified to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of two (02) years which shall not have the effect on future increments, however, by considering the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel without any monetary benefit. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed by the appellate authority which was confirmed by the learned Chairman & Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam vide the impugned orders to that of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period of two (02) years without cumulative effect, without any monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR