Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, S.R.NAYAK
Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Trans.Corpn. - Appellant
Versus
Mohd.Ismail - Respondent
Decided On : 10-18-96
BIAS - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY - OPINION EXPRESSED BY ACCIDENT ENQUIRY COMMITTEE - WHETHER DISQUALIFYING BIAS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY TO PRELIMINARY ENQUIRIES - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11-A - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Depot Manager, APSRTC, Medak, challenged the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the first respondent, a driver, into service with continuity of service and attendant benefit and with 50% back wages. The first respondent was driving a bus when it met with an accident resulting in injuries to 35 passengers and the conductor, and heavy damage to the vehicle. An Accident Enquiry Committee was constituted, which opined that the accident was caused on account of gross negligence of the driver and recommended his suspension and disciplinary action. The first respondent was suspended and served with a charge-sheet. A departmental enquiry was held, and the Inquiring Authority found the first respondent guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the findings, removed the first respondent from service. The first respondent challenged the validity of the enquiry and the final order before the Labour Court, which allowed the reference and directed reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the opinion expressed by the Accident Enquiry Committee in its report that the first respondent was guilty of negligence in driving the vehicle did not affect adversely any of the rights of the workman. A preliminary enquiry is not a judicial or quasi-judicial act; it is purely an administrative action. The purpose of holding a departmental enquiry is to decide whether disciplinary action should or should not be taken against a delinquent employee. The purpose of a preliminary enquiry is to find out whether there is sufficient justification for embarking on a full-fledged departmental enquiry against a particular employee. Preliminary enquiry does not result either in exoneration or punishment, but it merely guides the employer whether to proceed against a particular employee or not. The Court further held that the principles of natural justice are not applicable to preliminary enquiries, and consequently, the ex parte finding recorded by the Accident Enquiry Committee that the first respondent - workman was guilty of negligent driving would not be a disqualifying official or departmental bias.
Issues: 1. Whether the opinion expressed by the Accident Enquiry Committee in its report that the first respondent was guilty of negligence in driving the vehicle affected adversely any of the rights of the workman? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice are applicable to preliminary enquiries?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A preliminary enquiry is not a judicial or quasi-judicial act; it is purely an administrative action. The purpose of holding a departmental enquiry is to decide whether disciplinary action should or should not be taken against a delinquent employee. The purpose of a preliminary enquiry is to find out whether there is sufficient justification for embarking on a full-fledged departmental enquiry against a particular employee. Preliminary enquiry does not result either in exoneration or punishment, but it merely guides the employer whether to proceed against a particular employee or not. 2. The principles of natural justice are not applicable to preliminary enquiries, and consequently, the ex parte finding recorded by the Accident Enquiry Committee that the first respondent - workman was guilty of negligent driving would not be a disqualifying official or departmental bias.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashed the impugned award of the Labour Court insofar as it awarded 50% back wages, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition filed by the Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. , Medak is directed against the award dated 31/12/1987 passed in I. D. No. 244/86 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad directing reinstatement of the first respondent Sri Mohd. Ismail into service with continuity of service and attendant benefit and with 50% back wages.
( 2 ) AN important question of law of general importance whether an opinion expressed by a disciplinary authority in the course of preliminary enquiry that the delinquent employee is guilty of the alleged misconduct could act as a disqualifying bias arises for our consideration and decision in this case.
( 3 ) THE first respondent was a driver in the services of the A. P. S. R. T. C. It was alleged that on 19/05/1984 the first respondent was driving the bus bearing registration No. AAZ 1614 on the route Rajpet - Medak and while returning from Rajpet, on account of rash and negligent driving, he caused an accident while negotiating a turning on the left side of the road resulting in dashing of the vechile to the right side guard stones; the vechile went off the road for a distance of 47 feet and capsized in a nearby nala. On account of the accident 35 passengers and the conductor sustained injuries of different magnitude and heavy damage was caused to the vechile. The police registered a crime against the first respondent under Sec-337 Indian Penal Code. Accident Enquiry Committee was constituted as per the Operational Manual consisting of the Depot Manager, Medak and the Depot Manager, Sangareddy as a part of preliminary enquiry, to enquire into the accident. The Accident Enquiry Committee visited and inspected tip, Accident spot on 20/05/1984 and after, necessary investigation it opined that the accident was caused on account of gross negligence of the driver; it also opined that the first respondent be suspended and disciplinary action be instituted vide its report dated 22/05/1984. The first respondent was kept under suspension and he was served with the charge-sheet on 24/05/1984. The following are the four charges framed against the first respondent : 1 "for your rash and negligent driving of AAZ 161 4/05/1984 resulting in the capsize of the vehicle which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. No. 28 (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 2. For your gross negligence in driving AAZ - 1614 resulting in serious loss to the Corporation and inconvenience to the public which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. No. 28 (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. For having caused damage to AAZ 1614 due to your negligence which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 (xiii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 4. For having failed to take precautionary measures and driving the vechile AAZ 1614 without road Sense which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. No. 28 (xvii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. " The first respondent submitted his reply on 11/07/1984. Thereafter wards the Depot Manager, Medak who is the Disciplinary Authority and the petitioner herein, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the first respondent, decided to hold departmental enquiry, and appointed the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Medak division as Inquiring Authority, to conduct enquiry into the charges levelled against the first respondent. The Inquiring Authority, after holding the enquiry as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, for short c. C. A. Regulations, found the first respondent guilty of the charges. Accordingly the Inquiring Authority submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 29/08/1984. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
