(1.) Lack of anticipation resulting in a fatal road accident made a driver of APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 9 Z 5273 come before us seeking back wages by way of W.A. No. 865 of 2012. Questioning the very order of reinstatement with continuity of service and also awarding 50% of back wages by the learned single Judge, the Corporation preferred W.A. No. 1106 of 2012 and W.A. No. 913 of 2012 respectively. Since these appeals arose out of same set of facts, parties and issues being one and the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No. 27122 of 2008 filed by the driver of RTC bus.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 1st respondent Corporation in January 1986. On 31.08.1998, bus which he was driving on route from Chilakaluripet to Punur met with a fatal accident at Gandhi Circle near Clock Tower centre, Chilakaluripet. The 1st respondent while placing the petitioner under suspension issued a charge sheet dated 10.09.1988. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Corporation ordered domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted his report for which the petitioner submitted his objections. Having come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, a show cause notice of removal was issued. After considering the remarks sent by the petitioner the 1st respondent came to the conclusion that as the charges constitute grave misconduct, removed the petitioner from service. Challenging the said order, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal and then a revision before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager and Regional Manager, Guntur, which were rejected on 04.06.1999 and 20.12.1999 respectively.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 116 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Guntur. In the said I.D., the writ petitioner contended that the cyclist died due to his own fault as he suddenly crossed the road from one side to the other from behind a lorry, while the petitioner was overtaking the said lorry. According to him, it is not possible to observe each and every person or cyclist who entered the road suddenly from behind a parked vehicle. The respondent Corporation contended that if the petitioner was more conscious and cautious, he would have averted the accident.