( 1 ) THE writ petitioner who was a Driver serving in A. P. State Road Transport corporation by his rash and negligent driving caused the death of a motorcyclist on 28-3-1987 on route from Doramamidi to Jangareddygudem. He had to negotiate a curve near Marlagudem village and the road was not that wide. But in spite of the same he was driving the vehicle at high speed and that too by going to wrong side and did not even slow down which resulted in the accident and consequent death of an young person who was driving Hero Majestic two wheeler and was perfectly driving on his side - left side of the road. He was prosecuted for the criminal offence punishable under Section 304-A of the indian Penal Code in C. C. No. 192/87 on the file of the Court of II Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur and to his fortune, he was acquitted by judgment dated 30-10-1990. It is not known as to whether any appeal against acquittal was filed. As such, it can be concluded that the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) BUT the APSRTC authorities knowing fully well that the acquittal was only for technical reasons as the material witnesses turned hostile, initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings. A charge-memo was issued containing the following charges, namely, (1) for having driven the vehicle - AAZ 5338 - in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with a motor-cyclist coming in the opposite direction on the left side of the road with the result the motor-cyclist fallen on the road, sustained grave injuries and subsequently expired, which is a serious misconduct vide Reg. 28 (xxix) and (ix-a) of a. P. S. R. T. C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963; (2) for having failed to take adequate precautionary measures to avert the accident with the result motor-cyclist coming in the opposite direction, sustained grave injuries and subsequently expired, which is a serious misconduct vide Regulation 28 (ix a and b) of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees-, (Conduct) Regulations, 1963; and (3) for having failed to intimate the fact of the accident caused to the bus to the depot authorities on 28-3-1987 and concealed the facts till 31-3-1987, which is a serious misconduct vide Regulation 28 (xxii) and (xxxii) of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.

( 3 ) THE Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Eluru was the Enquiry Officer and after affording opportunity and complying other formalities and after holding enquiry, he reported to the disciplinary authority and a show cause notice was issued as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service and after considering the same, the petitioner was found guilty of the misconduct and was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal was filed with delay. Nevertheless, it was heard on merits and after comprehensively considering the matter, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. A review petition was filed by the petitioner, but was unsuccessful. Later, he had raised an industrial dispute and the same was tried as ID No. 181 of 1989 by the Labour Court, Guntur. But the Labour court also concurred with the decision rendered by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority.

( 4 ) MR. P. R. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the road was narrow and the petitioner was not at all rash and negligent in driving the bus and that the acquittal of the criminal charge is proof positive of the innocence of the petitioner. His argument is that when a competent Criminal Court has held the trial and on appreciation of the evidence, has recorded a finding of acquittal, for the same charge of rash and negligent driving, the finding in the departmental enquiry cannot sustain and that always the Court Judgment takes precedence over the order of the disciplinary authority, that too conducted by persons not legally trained and the officia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document