D J REDDY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the award dated 14.9.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ananthapur in ID No. 49 of 1996 upholding the proceedings of the second respondent in Proceedings No. 02/2(25)/1994-PLR, dated 21.2.1995 removing the petitioner from service of driver of the APSRTC. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as driver in APSRTC in 1992. While he was working as driver in Piler Depot of Chittoor District, the bus bearing No. AEZ-3949 met with an accident on 23.10.1991. In the said accident, two persons died on the spot and two other persons received injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry was initiated against him for the charge of causing death of two persons and injuries to others by driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation No. 28 of Clause XXXII of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges and submitted his report. The second respondent having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer came to the provisional conclusion to impose punishment of removal from service on the petitioner after issuing a show-cause notice and receiving explanation. Against the proceedings of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent and the third respondent in his proceedings dated 7.6.1998 dismissing the appeal confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Subsequently the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the first respondent contending inter alia that the order of removal passed by the second respondent is not valid. The first respondent Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, upholding the orders passed by the second respondent removing the petitioner from service as driver in the APSRTC passed an award to that effect. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anand Shinde, the learned Counsel representing Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, Standing Counsel for the APSRTC.

(3.) Before proceeding to consider the validity of the award passed by the first respondent, it requires to be noticed that after the accident Cr. No. 68 of 1994 was registered against the petitioner in Vayalpad Police Station and after the matter had been investigated into charge sheet came to be filed alleging commission of offence under Section 304(A) and 337 IPC. The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC during the course of which the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P1 to P10. On behalf of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. Before the learned Magistrate, who tried the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC in CC No. l 1 of 1995 against the petitioner all the material witnesses including the injured did not support the prosecution version and the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner herein holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and acquitted the petitioner. It may further be noticed that the Enquiry Officer passed the order upholding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him prior to the judgment was rendered in CC No. 11 of 1995 by the learned Magistrate. Further the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in CC No. 11 of 1995 was placed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, the first respondent herein and the first respondent taking the view that the departmental enquiry is independent of the criminal case, which was disposed of by the learned Magistrate concurred with the orders passed during the course of departmental enquiry which culminated in removal from service of the petitioner.