Partly allowed

G.S. Narayana, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023WP/34617/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a driver employee challenging the reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and `not on duty` status imposed during removal. The Court held that given the contributory negligence of the other vehicle and the employee's long service, the punishment required modification. The Court modified the order to remove the `cumulative ef

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned order dated 07.03.2011; reduced punishment from reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect.

G.S. Narayana, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 34617 OF 2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.S. Narayana, S/o. late t/allaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ: Driver, E.No.110470, Ryo. 5-3-285, Vidyanagar, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC'X'Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad.

¶14

3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the order of removal from service passed in Proc. No. P31292(2)|1O-KN/R, dated 27.O9.2O1O as well as the order of 2nd respondent issued in Proc. No. Peshil675(42)11O-RtVl:NZB, dated 07.03.201'1 in respect of denial of consequential benefits and in imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by (2) incremental stage for a period of (2) years with cumulative effect besides treating the intervening period of removal as not on duty as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the reduced increment, other deferred increment duly treating the intervening period of removal from service as on duty with wages along with other consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play .

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2012(WPMP. NO:43995 OF 20121

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the two increments which were directed to be withheld for a period of two years which the petitioner earned after his reinstatement pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS SC FOR TSRTC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION No. 34617 of2Ol2

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition under Article^{226 of the Constitution of}

¶26

India, is hled by the petitioner seeking^{the followingrelief:}

¶27

"to issue on appropiate, wit^{or dtrection particularlyone in tlle} nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI,^{quash the ord.erof remoual} from seruice passed in Proc.No.P3/ 292(2)/^{10-KMR dated27.09.2O1O os} u.tell as the order oJ 2"d^{respondentissuedinProc'No'} Peshi/ 675(42)/ 10 RM:NZB dated^{07.O3.2O11in respectof denial} of consequential benefits ond in imposing^{ttle punishmentof} reduction of pag bg⁽²⁾ increm,ental^stage for^{a peiod of (2) gears} with cumulatiua effect besides treating^{tlleinterueningpenod of} remoual as not on dutA as arbitrary^{unjustin uiolationof Art 14'} 16 & 21 of the Constitution oJ India^{and consequenttythe} petitioner praa this Hon'ble Court maA^{be pleqsed to direct the} respond.ents to restore the reduced increment^otherdefened increment dulA treatng the^{interuentngperiodof remoual} from seruice as on dutg t'ith wages along^{uith otlEr conseErentiol} benefits in the Lnterest^of iustice^and fair^play."

¶28

2l The brief lacts that are necessary^{for the disposal of the} present writ petition are that the^{petitioner joined the serviceof} the respondents-Corporation as^{driver on 16.O4'i984and his} services were regularized^{w.e.f . O1.O7.1986. Eversince the date of} joining into service, the petitioner continuously^{workedtill he was} removed from service on^{27 .O9.2O1O and thereafter from} O4.O4.2O11 i.e, from the^{date of his reinstatement into serviceas} per the orders of respondent No.2.^{While the petitioner was} working under the control of respondent^{No.3, he wassuspended}

¶29

¶30

AAR, .J W.P. lio.346 t7 of 20l2

¶31

from servicc on 05.02.2010 aod issued charge sheet with the following charge:

¶32

"For hauitg diuert the bus ,Vo.Ap j 1 Z 4SS3 ro.sh and" neglige_ntly tDithout taking precautionary measures u,thile performing the duty of Hgderabad-Ni:.,omabad and met utith an accident witlT DCM Tipper Van No.AP 28 W 8948 as a result of which the Tipper trun Driuer succumbed to iny,L.io-s ancl sorne possengers oJ the bus sltstained injuies which constitutes mscolLduct undel Regulation No.28(tx)(a)(b) oJ APSRTC Emptogees (Conduct) Req. 1963"

¶33

1'he petitioner submitted his explanation on OS.OS.2O10 stating that while hc was driving the passenger bus bearing No.Ap 11 Z 4553 on 08.O4.2O 1O from Hydcrzrbaci io Kamareddy, and reached Outer Ring Road, Toopran near Nagulapalli X roads, the DCM Tipper bearing No.Ap 28 W g94g came from Nizamabad side with load of iron and clashed the petitioner,s bus ltear the diesel tank which was on the .igitt side of the petitioner,s bus. .fl-re petitioner stated thar thc driver of ttle DCM vehicle was at fault and responsiblc for the accident. The explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and departmental enquiry was ordered against him. Thereaftcr, the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry and after recording the evidence on behalf of the management and also the pe titioner, submitted his enquiry report holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved.

¶34

Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary

¶35

AAR, J w.P. No.34617 of 2012

¶36

¶37

Authority/respondent No.3 vide order dated 27.Og.2OlO ordered for removal of the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority/respondent No.2 but the same was rejected uide order dated 08.12.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled review petition before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 having come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of DCM vehicle bearing No.Ap 28 W 8948, had set aside the punishment of removal from service and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service, but imposed che follou,ing punishment:

¶38

a) reduction of bastc pag bA tuo incrermental stage for a peiod. of tuo gears Luith cumutatiue eflect on the petitioner's future increments.

¶39

b) The interuemng peiod fron the d..Lte of remo,ual till the petitioner reported for^{dutg sho,ll} be tteoted^qs not on <7utl.

¶40

Challenging the aforesaid punishrrrent irnposed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed rhe present Writ petition.

¶41

The respondents-Corporation Iiled counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner while performing duty on NizamabadHyderabad service Route with Bus No.Ap l I Z 4SS3 on 08.04.20I O mct with accident wkrile returning from Hyderabad, near Toopran. That the accident took place at a.bout l4:3O hours,

¶42

AAIi, J w.P. No.114617 of 20 12

¶43

¶44

due to which the driver of DCM van succumbeci to injuries while shifting to hospital and therelore, the petitioner was placed under suspension duly issuing charge sheet. The petitioner submitted his explanaLion stating that the driver of DCM vehicle dashed to the right side of bus resulting in death of driver of DCM van due to coliision with the bus. On considering tl-re details of accident sketch and other evidence available on record, the petitioner *,as found guilty and lLrther it was lbund there was also contributory negligence on the part of DCM Van driver. As per the rough sketch, stateffrents of the crelr' anci passengers, it n,as opined that the petitioner was held responsible for thc cause o[ accident and if the petitioner had driven the vehicle with anticipation and low speed, the accident could have been avertecl duly observing [he vehicle movements passing on National Highr,r-ay but the petitioner failed to do so. After conducLing detailed enquiry, based on the enquiry report, the respondent No.3 removed the petitioner from service and the appeal hled by the petitioner before the appellate authority was also rejected. It is further stated that the petitioner was also involved in fatai accident. case in the 1.-ear 2O0O, for which increment of the petitioner r.vas deferred for a pe riod of two years which would have its effect on his future increments and an amount of Rs.2O0/- was debiteci towards cost o[ darnage vide O/o.

¶45

5 AAR, J W.P. No.34617 of 2012

¶46

No'Pa/292(21/2ooo-KMR, dated 22.r r.200o during his service. It is submitted thar the petitioner filed review petition before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 being reviewing authorit5r considered the case of the petitioner by taking lenient view and on humanitarian grounds and also the length of service of about 24 years, directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as a regular driver by imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stage for a period of two years which shall have its effect on his future increments beside treating the intervention period form the date o[ removal till reporting to duty as ,Not on duty'. Thus the respondents-Corporation prayed this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶47

4l Heard the submissions of Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent No.2 duty taking into c<;nsideration that the accident had not occurred solely due to the negligence of the petitioner alone, has set aside the order of removal from service and reinstated the peti[ioner into service and imposed the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two incrernents stage for a period of

¶49

AAIR..J rV. P. No.34617 of^2OI2

¶50

¶51

two years with cumulative effect on the^{petitioner'sfuture} increments and that the^. inten'ening^{periodfrom the date of} removal till the petitioner reported to duty^{shallbe treated as 'not} on duty'. Pursuant to the order of the^{respondentNo.2, the} petitioner was reinstated into service. The learned^{counsel lor the} petitioner has stated that the Reviewing Ar-rtirot=ity^{having comc to} the conclusion that there was contributory^{rlegligence on the part} of the DCM Tipper vehicle and duly taking^inL<-r account^thc unblemished length of service of the petitioner,^{oughl not to have} imposeci the punishmeni of reduction of basic^{pay t-.'i'1v16} increments for a period of two years with cumulative^{effect on his} future increments and treating Lhc intervening^{period tiomthe} date of removal till reportlng for duty as'not^{on dut1",2t,6 that the} same is harsh punishment, grossly dispro^{portionateto the charge} levelled against the petitiorrer. That thc reviewing^{authorityought} to have considered the unblemished and^{clean recordofthe} petitioner and ought not have imposed the above^punishment' Due to the imposition of tlee above^{punishment,the petitioneris} put to great financial loss as the same is having^{effect on all his} luture increments. Further, it is stated^{that the petitioner is at the} fag end of his service. Therefore, the^{learnedcounsel prayed this} Court to allow the present writ petition, as^prayedfor.

¶52

AAR, J W.P. No.34617 of 2012

¶53

¶54

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Corporation has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the petitioner was negligent while driving the bus and caused the accident, resulting in the death of driver of the Tipper van besides the passengers sustaining injuries. The disciplinary authority duly taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, has imposed the punishment of removal from service. Due to the negligent driving of the petitioner, there is every likelihood that accidents may happen, endangering the lives of the passengers. That the Reviewing Authority was very lenient and taking a humanitarian approach has reduced the punishment of removal to that of reinstatement albeit with some conditions. Therefore, the learned Standing Counse I prayed this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶55

7l Perused the record

¶56

Adrnittedly, in the present case, the pe titioner has joined the service of the respondent-Corporation in the year 1984. Even by the time of accident, the petitioner has put in almost 24 years ot service. Except the accidents vr.hich occurred in the year 2000 and also one on 08.O4.2O 10, the petitioner was not involved in any

¶57

AAR..] lV. P No.34517^{ot 201)}

¶58

¶59

other accidents. The petitioner is having a clean i-ecord. A perusal crl [he order dated A7 .O3.20I 1 passed by the respondent No.2, which is impugned in the present writ petition shows that the revierving authority came to the concltrsion that the petitioner was guilty of lack of anticipation of the other vehicle on the Highway and the contributory negligence on the part of the other vehicle r.e, DCM van is also noticed and in vieu, of the length of service of the petitioncr of about 24 years (reasonably laic rccord), trac[ se[ aside the order of removal from service imposed by the respon6sng No.3 and reinstateri the petitioner into senrice as regular 611i,-,sr sr_rbject to the following conditions:

¶60

1. Reduction oJ basic pay bA tuo (2) tncrentento! stages lor a peflod of tLuo(2) geors with anmuiatiue efJect on his future i cretnents.

¶61

1. Hts reinstatement ts subject to l,tedrcol ftrLe-ss, ualiditg of Di.ung license and successful completion o,f traininq at ZSTC.

¶62

1. The nteruenrng peiod from the date of remoual t l reporting for duty be treated as NOT ON DuTy.

¶63

1. He shatl pag fresh seanritg deposit."

¶64

Even though the respondent No.2 found t-hat there was contributory negligence on the part ol driver of the otl-rer yehicle i.e, DCM Var, but the petitioner was found guilty for t2ck of anticipation- lt is to be noticed that no person or driver can anticipate that accrdent will happen, morc-so, r,r'hcn the 66<zer of

¶65

¶66

AAR, J W.P No.346 t7 ot20l2

¶67

I I

¶68

(

¶69

the other vehicle is attributed with negligence It is impossible for any person to anticipate as to how and in what situation an accident will take place. [n the instant case, admittedly, the revlewlng authority has taken a lenient view and modified the punishrnent of removal from service to that of rcrnstatement into service. Having recorded a finding that the driver of the other vehicle was also negligent, n hich resulted in accident, the reviewing authorit5r ought not have imposed the punishment on the petitioner with cumulative effect, which is a harsh punishment. Moreover, as seen from the record, thc petitioner is having a clean record in his entire 24 years o[ servrcc and also taking into consideration the [acr that petitioner is at the fag end of his service, this Court is of rhe opinion that ends of justice would be served if the imposition of the punishmcnt of reduction of basic pay by two (2) incrementar stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect on the petitioner,s future increments is modified to that of^..without cumulative effect,,. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.O3.2Ol t passed by the respondent No.2 is modified only to the extent indicated above.

¶70

In the result, rhis Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶71

AAlt.., W P. No.34(r^{l7 of 2012}

¶72

¶73

Conscquently,^{miscellaneouspetitions pending'if ar-ry' shall}

¶74

stand closcd. There^{shallbe no order as to costs}

¶75

¶76

That Rule Nisi^{has been madeAbsolute as above'} Witness $re non^{ute SRl. UiJAa eHuveN,The Chief Justiceon this} i;;;;t;'ih. Fourth davof^{April, TwoThousand and Twentv Three'}

¶77

SD/-N. SRIHARI

¶78

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶79

//TRUE COPY/I '1---.---

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

To,

¶82

The Managing^{Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC'X Road' TSRTC' Hyderabad'} , Tha R,.(,i,,rral hranaoer. rSnfC. Nizamabad^{Region, Nizamabad} 5 iilE iiEili' iil;;;s;itsiiC,^{el' D"pot,KamaieddY' Niz-amabadDistrict} ; il; Cd b SCr.^{V linneslMHAGouDAdvocqte} [9PUCI ; 5;; 66^{iJ s-Ri. ftroor,r'siirr'livAsscFoR rsRrc Advocate [oPUC]}

¶83

Two CD^CoPies KKS" GJ P A_

1lr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410412023

i 0 'l l'{^?ii?3

ORDER

WP Na 1LR17 aI 2i4)

ALLOWING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS q

¶91

t"n.p.fl1(

G.S. Narayana, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S. Narayana, v. Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

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

Dev Anand Deva, Mumbai Vs Chairman and M.D., Small Industries Devp Bank of India, and 2 Ot

Dr.S.K.Mahmood,Usmania University, Hyderabad Vs Osmania University, Rep.by Its Registrar, Hyderabad

Sri T.A. Kaleeswaran, Hyderabad Vs Deputy General Manager, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and 1

S. Vishweshwar Rao Vs K. Anitha

Rasakatla Sagar Vs Kusuma Rajamani

K.Rama Krishna Rao Vs Sri C.Narayana Reddy, IAS