MOHAMMADALI IMAMALI KAZI Vs. GSRTC AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a driver of the Gijarat State Road Transport Corporation, filed this Special Civil Application before this Court in the matter of Departmental proceedings and the penalty given to him. On 7-7-1977 the petitioner was driving the bus of the Corporation No. GTK 5496 from Ahmedabad to Modasa. As a result of his negligent driving the conductor of the bus was seriously injured and he was taken to the Hospital where he succumbed to death. In connection with this act of the petitioner, the police has registered a case and challan has been filed in the court of J. M. F. C. Prantij. The petitioner for this act of negligence was served with the charge-sheet dated 1-8-1977. The charge against the petitioner was that while, reversing the bus he was negligent, which resulted in the death of the conductor of the bus. The inquiry was held against the petitioner wherein the charge was found to be proved. The show-cause notice was given to the petitioner in which the penalty of dismissal was proposed. After considering the reply to the show-casue notice, the disciplinary authority has decided to give the penalty of dismissal to him under its order dated 11- 7-1979. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, but the same has been dismissed. He has taken up this matter in the second appeal which was partly allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated back in the service, but his pay was ordered to be reduced. The petitioner has also taken the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, but that has also been dismissed. Hence, this Special Civil Application before this Court.

(2.) The reply to the Special Civil Application has been filed by the respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner made twofold submissions. Firstly it is contended that in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted, and as such there was no question of punishing the petitioner of the same charges in the departmental proceedings. In support of this contention, the teamed Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur Civil Lines, Nagpur & Anr. v. Ramchandra G. Modak reported in AIR 1984 SC pages 626, in the case of N. S. Nair v. The Commissioner of Police, reported in 23 GLT 375, in the case of Chandrasinh Rupsinh v. State of Gujarat & Others reported in 18 GLT 421, in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. v. Rupsinh Veghaji Rathod reported in 1985 GLH (NOC) 9 and in the case of T. Vijayakumar v. State of A. P. reported in 1987 LTC 15. It has next been contended that the penalty of reduction of the pay is highly harsh and excessive.