IMPORTANT POINT
The disciplinary proceedings are not affected by the outcome of the acquittal in the criminal case.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 21 November 2019 of a Division Bench at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The Division Bench dismissed a writ appeal arising from a judgment of a Single Judge by which the respondent was directed to be reinstated in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court though back wages have been restricted to 40 per cent.

3. The respondent was appointed as a driver by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation¹[“Corporation”] on 18 October 1985. On 1 March 2003, he was on duty as a driver in a bus bearing Registration No TN 45 N 1326 on the Chennai to Trichy route. The bus left Chennai at 10.30 am and reached Perambalur at 3.30 pm. According to the Management, when the bus was proceeding near the new RTO office, it went on to the extreme right side of the road and dashed against a two wheeler on which besides the rider, there were two pillion riders. Two of the three occupants died on the spot, while, the third died shortly thereafter in a government hospital. The respondent was placed under suspension and a charge memo was issued to him on 7 March 2003 on the allegation of being involved in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of three persons. No reply was filed by the respondent to the charge memo and disciplinary proceedings were accordingly initiated. The enquiry officer found in a report dated 19 May 2003 that the charge was proved. The respondent filed his response to the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 3 July 2003 following which, an order of dismissal from service was passed. The disciplinary authority noted that the respondent had suffered eighteen punishments within a period of eighteen years’ service, including eleven punishments for accidents and damages out of which two accidents were major, including one fatal accident.

4. An industrial dispute was raised, following which proceedings in ID No 25 of 2006 took place before the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. The Labour Court held that the charges of misconduct were not proved and while setting aside the order of dismissal directed reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. The appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge accepted the plea of the appellant by holding that this was a case where the doctrine of resipsaloquiturshould be invoked and that the respondent was guilty of rash and negligent driving. However, despite these findings, the Single Judge confirmed the award of the Labour Court, but, restricted the quantum of back wages to 40 per cent on the ground that:

(i) The appellant had not examined the person who drew the spot sketch; and

(ii) The appellant had failed to mark the award of the MACT in the proceedings before the Labour Court.

5. The judgment of the Single Judge has been affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court.

6. Mr Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Single Judge having accepted the basic contention of the appellant that the respondent was guilty of rash and negligent driving, the decision to set aside the disciplinary award by the employer on the technical grounds, noted above, was not in order. Moreover, it was submitted that the past record of the employee indicated a series of punishments, including those involving rash and negligent driving. In this backdrop, it was urged that in the absence of anything to indicate that the enquiry was not fair, the finding of misconduct was sustainable with reference to the evidence on the record and the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate to the misconduct found to be established.

7. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, Mr Md Shahid Anwar, counsel, submitted that the respondent has been acquitted in the criminal trial. Apart from the above submission, it has been urged that though the Single Judge has found that this was a ca