DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HYDERABAD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who is the Director Operations, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as R.T.C.), seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Industrial Tribunal. Andhra Pradesh in M.P. No. 128 of 1970 in I.D. No.37 of 1969 on its file relating to the dismissal from service of the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The 2nd respondent who was employed as a driver in R.T.C. was attached to the Hyderabad District Depot No. II in Gowliguda while driving the bus bearing Registration No. APZ 3804 on 11th June, 1969, he knocked down one Yellamma on the road between Jagdevpur and Bhongir, resulting in her instantaneous death and on a charge sheet filed by the Police under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case was taken on file as C.C.No. 240 of 1968 by the District Munsiff-cum-I Class Magistrate, Bhongir and this ended in the conviction of the accused of the offence under section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and the imposition of a fine of Rs. 40 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for forty days. On account of the above conduct that had resulted in the conviction, the 2nd respondent was removed from service in pursuance of Regulation 9(2) (a) read with Regulation 13 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations of 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the C.C.A. Regulations). By then an industrial dispute between the Road Transport Corporation employees and the management was pending. As the 2nd respondent was also a workman concerned in the said dispute an application under section 33 92) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act had to be filed before the Industrial Tribunal for approving the action taken against the 2nd respondent, but this petition was dismissed, the Tribunal holding that the operative portion of the order passed by the punishing authority merely mentions that the order of removal is passed in view of the conduct that led to conviction that no other circumstances appear to have been taken into consideration that the distinction between dismissing for this conduct and dismissing for his conviction had not been scrupulously observed and as the order is based on conviction only, the principles of natural justice have been violated and refused approval. Hence this petition.

(3.) The 2nd respondent an employee of the Road Transport Corporation is governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation C.C.A. Regulations of 1967. Under Regulation No.9 of these Regulations an employee is liable to be dismissed from service on a conviction by a Court on a Criminal charge. Regulation No.13 of these Regulations reads as follows:-