Allowed

P.Thulasiram Raju Chittoor v. R.M. Apsrtc Chittoor and 2

Telangana HC4 Mar 2010WP/741/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge held that the punishment of reduction of basic pay imposed on a bus driver was perverse given evidence of brake defects prior to the accident and his criminal acquittal. The order setting aside the pay reduction was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The direction to reduce basic pay to the minimum of the Grade-II time scale with cumulative effect was set aside; pay restored notionally with consequential benefits, excluding actual arrears.

P.Thulasiram Raju Chittoor Vs R.M. Apsrtc Chittoor… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.741 OF 2001

¶3

DATED 4^th MARCH, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

P.Thulasirama Raju

¶6

… Petitioner A n d Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, and others.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.741 OF 2001

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner is a Driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). His services were regularized as such in the year 1989. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under charge sheet dated 18.12.1993 in connection with an accident caused by him while he was plying the bus service between Tirumala and Madras on 20.11.1993. Owing to the said accident, 5 persons lost their lives and 25 persons sustained injuries. In consequence, by order dated 27.04.1994 the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tirupati, being the Primary Authority, removed him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner’s appeal to the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupati, was rejected under order dated 29.08.1994. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred a review before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Tirupati, who by order dated 06.11.1996 modified the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and directed his reinstatement in service with immediate effect. The reviewing authority directed that the suspension period undergone by the petitioner should be treated as ‘not on duty’ and also imposed upon him the punishment of reduction of his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale of Driver Grade-II with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present case.

¶12

Sri J.Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the reviewing authority accepted that the vehicle log sheet pertaining

¶13

to the dates 14.11.1993, 15.11.1993 and 17.11.1993 reflected that the brakes had shown defects. As the accident occurred immediately thereafter on 20.11.1993, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the accident and consequently, the punishment visited upon him is unsustainable. The learned counsel also relied on the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.153 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class by judgment dated 20.04.1998, pertaining to the very same accident.

¶14

It is contended on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC that the reviewing authority had taken a lenient view in the matter in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in service and therefore, no ground was made out for further interference.

¶15

The order of the reviewing authority clearly manifests that the petitioner had in fact informed the passengers about the defective brakes prior to the accident. However, the reviewing authority was of the opinion that the same did not absolve him of culpability for the accident. I am not inclined to accept such a conclusion in the light of the vehicle log sheet which clearly demonstrated that the brake defects had been noted on three days just before the date of the accident. In the light of these facts, it is doubtful whether the blame for the accident could be laid at the door of the petitioner. Another fact which speaks in his favour is his honourable acquittal in the criminal case. In such view of the matter, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner appears to be perverse.

¶16

As the petitioner remained out of service during the period of his suspension, I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed by the reviewing authority treating such period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. However, in so far as reduction of his basic pay is concerned, the same is unsustainable given the facts as noted supra. The direction of the reviewing authority to reduce the basic pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the time scale of Driver Grade-II with cumulative effect is accordingly set aside. However, he shall not be entitled to monetary arrears pursuant to

¶17

this order. The pay of the petitioner shall be restored notionally and he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in pursuance thereof, excepting payment of actual arrears for the period prior to the date of this order.

¶18

The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, no costs.

¶19

-------------------------SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶20

4^th MARCH, 2010 PGS

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.741 OF 2001

¶23

4^th MARCH, 2010

P.Thulasiram Raju Chittoor v. R.M. Apsrtc Chittoor and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thulasiram Raju Chittoor v. R.M. Apsrtc Chittoor and 2

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

Smt. M. Sreedevi, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary

Mrs. K. Mythili, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

R.Seshadri, Vs The District Educational Officer

V.Sesha Brahma Chari, Vs The District Co-Op. Officer

D.Guru Murthy Vs The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner

P. Anil Kumar Vs The District Collector (Chairman)