G SIMHACHALAM Vs. DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner who was a Driver serving in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation by his rash and negligent driving caused the death of a motor-cyclist on 28-3-1987 "on route from Doramamidi to Jangareddygudem He had to negotiate a curve near Mariagudem village and the road was not that wide. But, inspite of the same he was driving the vehicle at high speed and that too by going to wrong side and did not even slow down which resulted in the accident and consequent death of an young person who was driving Hero Majestic two wheeler and was perfectly driving on his side left side of the road. He was prosecuted for the criminal offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.192/87 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kowur and to his fortune, he was acquitted by judgment dated 30-10- 1990. It is not known as to whether any appeal against acquittal was filed. As such, it can be concluded that the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) But the APSRTC authorities knowing fully well that the acquittal was only for technical reasons as the material witnesses turned hostile, initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings. A charge-memo was issued containing the following charges, namely,

(3.) The Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Eluru was the enquiry officer and after affording opportunity and complying other formalities and after holding enquiry, he reported to the disciplinary authority and a show-cause notice was issued as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service and after considering the same, the petitioner was found guilty of the mis-conduct and was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal was filed with delay. Nevertheless, it was heard on merits and after comprehensively considering the matter, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. A review petition was filed by the petitioner, but was unsuccessful. Later, he had raised an industrial dispute and the same was tried as ID No. 181 of 1989 by the Labour Court, Guntur. But the labour court also concurred with the decision rendered by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority.