A. RAMESH Vs. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a driver employed with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as 'the Corporation'), has challenged the orders passed by the Depot Manager, Kakinada dated 10.1.2015 placing him under suspension for having caused a fatal accident at about 9 -10 hours on 26.12.2014 at ZPP Center, Kakinada, while performing the duties as a Driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 29 Z 2628. Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.V. Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

(2.) SRI T.S. Venkata Ramana would strenuously contend that the petitioner was performing the duties on 26.12.2014 and at about 9 -10 hours, when the vehicle has reached ZPP Center, Kakinada, he had taken a right turn and duly observing the ongoing vehicular traffic, proceeded further to reach the Bus Depot at Kakinada. If the allegation thrown against the petitioner now is correct, the passengers in the bus and the petitioner would have come to know of the accident that was caused in which a female pedestrian died on the spot. Sri Ramana would further urge that no one, either in the bus or nearby, has raised any alarm against the petitioner for having caused the accident. On the other hand, with a view to fasten the liability for the fatal accident on to the Corporation, designedly, an allegation has been thrown as if the accident has been caused involving the Corporation bus and because the bus driven by the petitioner has passed by that junction a few minutes earlier, the allegation that the vehicle driven by the petitioner was involved in the accident, has been trumped up. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that if an accident is caused, the bus would have been stopped immediately. Further, if a bus is taking a right turn, it would not be taking such a right turn without first of all slowing it down and consequently, observing the traffic on the opposite side of the road and also look for the traffic that will follow the bus, which is taking a right turn. Therefore, the question of involving the bus driven by the petitioner in such an accident is so remote and unrealistic. Perhaps, some other motor vehicle may have caused the accident. The charge is frame up, so that the compensation can be claimed by the dependents of the victim against the Corporation, otherwise, for a hit -and -run case, at best, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - alone will be paid by the District Collector.

(3.) PER contra, Sri S.V. Ramana, the learned Standing Counsel, would submit that almost immediately the local police have come to the Depot and it is the local police, who have brought to the notice of the Depot Manager about the accident involving the bus of the Corporation. The Corporation's officers, till then, are not in the know of the accident. Then a Joint Accident Inquiry Committee, comprising of the Depot Manager, Kakinada and the Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram, has been constituted. In the meantime, the petitioner has been sent word to come back to the Depot and along with him, the accident spot has also been inspected. Since, there was some prima facie material to consider the involvement of the bus of the Corporation driven by the petitioner in the accident, the impugned order came to be passed.