The Depot. Manager, Vs The Regional Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

The Depot. Manager, Vs The Regional Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the award in I.D.No.61 of 2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu, setting aside the punishment of reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed on the driver, deserved to be set aside/quashed — i.e., whether there were grounds for this Court to interfere with the award.

Court's answer

The Superintendent, Guntakal, examined as a witness in the domestic enquiry, was not an eye-witness to the occurrence; he concluded that the driver was at fault and deposed to rash and negligent driving only basing on the police report.

Ratio / Principle

The driver was acquitted in the criminal case arising from the accident, C.C.No.504 of 2011, and the said judgment was placed on record as Ex.W-4.

Key takeaways

The acquittal judgment (Ex.W-4) contains a categorical finding that none of the material witnesses stated against the driver and also about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.ratio¶¶34
The Conductor, an eye-witness to the occurrence, categorically stated that when a Tata Magic Van overtook an Eicher vehicle at high speed and hit it, they stopped their bus and checked whether the van had hit their vehicle but found nothing.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa) dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 filed by the Depot Manager (APSRTC) seeking quashing of the award in I.D.No.61 of 2013, dt. 22.12.2014, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu (published vide G.O.Rt.No.156, dt. 08.04.2015), by which the Labour Court had set aside the punishment of reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect imposed on a driver after a departmental enquiry into a 2010 bus accident in which two persons died. Held: the Superintendent who concluded the driver was at fault was not an eye-witness and acted only on the police report; the driver stood acquitted in C.C.No.504 of 2011 (Ex.W-4), which contained a categorical finding that no material witness spoke against him or to the vehicle's involvement; the Conductor, an eye-witness, stated that a Tata Magic Van hit an Eicher vehicle and nothing was found when their bus was checked; no other evidence showed the bus's involvement. In the absence of legally admissible evidence the punishment was unsustainable and there were no grounds to interfere with the Labour Court's award. Writ petition dismissed; no costs.

1

APHC010303862018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

WRIT PETITION NO: 13932/2018

Between:

The Depot. Manager,

...PETITIONER

AND

The Regional Secretary and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR LABOUR (AP)

2.P GOVINDA RAJULU

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

the following prayer:

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the award made in I.D.No.61 of 2013, dated 22.12.2014 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Anantapuramu, which was published in the gazette vide G.O.Rt.No.156, dated 08.04.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and quash the same and pass such other order or orders…...”

2

Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for petitioner / APSRTC and Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Sri S.Mabu, worked as Driver in the RTC. While discharging duties, the bus met with an accident in the year 2010 and two persons died. In the departmental enquiry, his guilt is proved and he was awarded with punishment for reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, against which, he preferred appeal that was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, he preferred review that was also rejected. Assailing such orders, he preferred I.D.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the Labour Court, Anantapuramu. Learned Judge allowed the said I.D. by setting aside the impugned order of punishment imposed against him. Learned counsel would submit that there is a clear observation in the order passed by the Department imposing punishment of reduction of two increments with cumulative effect. Learned Reviewing authority also observed that the deriver admitted his guilt before the police. That being the case, learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has set aside the entire punishment. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays to set aside the award passed in I.D.No.61 of 2013 and restore the punishment awarded to the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court categorically observed with

3

reference to C.C.No.504 of 2011, wherein the learned Magistrate narrated that none of the material witnesses stated against the driver and also about the bus which is involved in the accident. It is also observed that even in the domestic enquiry, there is no evidence to show that the workman is at fault. Learned Judge also taking into consideration the evidence of the Conductor, who was very much present at the time of the alleged accident, came to the right conclusion that the bus is not involved in the accident. There is nothing found against the workman. In that view, the award was passed setting aside the punishment imposed against the driver. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition.

Considering the material placed on record, as rightly put by learned counsel for respondent No.1, there are clear observations made by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to the effect that in domestic enquiry, none of the witnesses including the Conductor, who was present at the time of the alleged accident, stated about the negligence on the part of the workman. The Superintendent, Guntakal, who was examined as a witness in the domestic enquiry, in his cross-examination, stated that basing on the report given by the police, he came to the conclusion that the driver was at fault, which means, he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and only basing on the words of the police, he deposed that the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent way. That apart, the driver was acquitted in a criminal case i.e. C.C.No.504 of 2011. The said Judgment is placed on record as Ex.W-4,

4

which shows a categorical finding from the Court that none of the material witnesses stated against the driver and also involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Coming to the other charges, the Conductor, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, categorically stated that when Tata Magic Van over take Eicher vehicle with high speed and hit the same, they stopped their bus and checked whether the van hit their vehicle, but they did not find anything. There is no other evidence on record to show that the bus involved in the accident. Due to the said reason, the driver did not choose to inform about the accident to the Depot authorities. In absence of any legally admissible evidence on record, imposing punishment against the driver for reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, is not sustainable. As such, there are no grounds to interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 04.04.2025 ARR

5

241

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

WRIT PETITION NO: 13932/2018

Dt.04.04.2025

ARR