4' Learned counsel appearing for the pctitioner contcnds that though the petitioner submitted a convincing and cogent cxplar-ration to lhe charge memo, dated 31.03.20i 1, staring that thr: accident was contributed by the deceased pedestrian, but not bv the petitioner, the respondents have lailed to consicler thc setme in pr6pt,1 l-rt__rspccti\rc and ordered for enquiry. Further, [he Assistant iVlanagcr (Traffic). rvho conducted a preliminary enquiry, has clearl,y admitted that the petitioner tried his best to avoid the occurrcucc ol thc acciclcnt, hor.a..cvr:r. 6lue to the con[usion created by the pcdcstriarr, the accic]ci1t $.:t:j ()ccL.l rrecl antl contends that the deceased pcdestrran hirnsell harj i ,rr!rL( u -.,: +,. r . LIt(. L a('crLr(-rr(. ^:r^-. lt is further contended that during the enqu1ry, the scrvrce conductor deposed that on seeing the pedcstrian, q,ho u,as in a confusecl state of mind, the petitioner had applied brakes, but the vehicie u,as pulled to 15 feet. Thus, it was clear that due to rhe confused pedestri:rn. the accident took place. Hence, the action ol rhc enquiry officer it.r holding the petitioner guilty or charges is nothir.rg lrur a departmcrrr_:rl bias and not based on facts, which consequently vitiates thc enquiry.
