Allowed

M.S. Narayana v. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.

Telangana HC27 Sept 2010WP/18621/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the suspension of an APSRTC driver involved in a road accident where a motorcyclist hit the rear of the bus. The court held that prima facie facts do not justify suspension when the accident report indicated the bus driver was not primarily responsible.

What did the court decide?

The suspension order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the First Respondent is set aside.

M.S. Narayana Vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18621 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner is working as driver in Ramachandrapuram depot of APSRTC. On 22.05.2010, he was driving a vehicle from Yanam to Ramachandrapuram. At 6.30 pm when the bus reached Vegayammapeta Village, a motor cyclist with a pillion rider tried to overtake the bus and in the process hit the bus on the rear right portion. The motor cyclist and the pillion rider fell down and it is stated that one of them died while undergoing treatment. The first respondent directed a spot enquiry through a Committee. After visiting the place, the Committee submitted a report on 25.05.2010. It was pointed out that the motor cycle hit the bus on the rear portion and the driver of the bus could have averted the accident had he been more careful. It was also stated that the motor cyclist is responsible in hitting the bus.

¶4

Taking the report into account, the first respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 12.07.2010. On the same day, he placed the petitioner under suspension through a separate order. The order of suspension is challenged in the writ petition.

¶5

Heard Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Sathyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. There would have been justification for the first respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension had it been a case where the bus hit the motor cycle. The undisputed facts which have emerged so far are that it is the motor cycle that hit the bus on the rear side. The driver, prima facie, cannot be held responsible for such an

¶6

incident. He is supposed to concentrate on the road in front of him. Further, it was not even alleged that the driver of the bus noticed the motor cyclist behind him and did not take adequate steps to prevent the accident. At any rate, the various niceties involved need to be considered during the course of enquiry. The facts which are available on record as of now, do not warrant or justify the suspension of the petitioner.

¶7

Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the first respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. It shall be open to the first respondent to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶8

_____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 27^th September 2010 Note: Issue CC in three days. B/o dr

M.S. Narayana v. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Narayana v. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Somulu Vs The Apsrtc

V. Santhaiah Vs The Regional Manager

Smt N. Prajavathi Vs Sri D. John

Mrs. Praveen Begum Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.Munisubbarayudu Vs K.Munikrishna

G. Satyanarayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation