Repeated proclamation of concern, and lofty statements of having taken adequate measures to ensure safe driving by its drivers, notwithstanding, the present case best illustrates the apathy and indifference of the A.P.S.R.T.C. to the plight of pedestrians.

For rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the death of a pedestrian on the accident spot, a criminal case was instituted and disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner. While he was found guilty of misconduct in the departmental enquiry, and imposed the punishment of removal from service, he was acquitted in the criminal case. The challenge to the order of removal from service resulted in the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad directing his reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Curiously, the Respondent A.P. State Road Transport Corporation has permitted the Award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional labour Court to attain finality and has not chosen to challenge it by way of a writ petition before this Court. It is the petitioner-workman who has approached this Court questioning the said Award to the limited extent that he was denied back wages. Reference to the disciplinary proceedings, the order of the Criminal Court and the Award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court is necessary to show the inept handling of criminal cases by the prosecution and the casual manner in which industrial disputes are dealt with.

Disciplinary Proceedings:

The petitioner, a driver at the R.T.C. bus depot, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, was charged of rash and negligent driving, lack of anticipation and failure to take precautionary measures to prevent the accident which resulted in the death of a pedestrian on the spot. The charges levelled against the petitioner were:

Charge No.1: “For your gross negligence while driving the vehicle No AAZ 9909 on 22.08.1992 with lack of anticipation and judgment, which has resulted spot death of a pedestrian, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation 28(ix)(a) and (b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

Charge No.2: “For having failed to take precautionary measures while operating bus No. AAZ 9909 on 22.08.1992 when you observed the pedestrian fallen from the vision mirror, which constitute misconduct in terms of Regulations 28(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Regulations 1963.”

The petitioner’s written explanation was called for and, not being satisfied therewith, a departmental enquiry was ordered. During the course of enquiry, the Assistant Manager (Traffic), Sri M. Satish Kumar, who was examined as a witness on behalf of the management, deposed that, on 22.08.1992, he had received a telephonic message from the depot at 22.00 hours informing him that bus No. AAZ 9909 had met with an accident at Lakdikapul resulting in the death of a pedestrian, that he had immediately rushed to the spot and found that the bus had been removed by the driver, from the scene of the accident, and was driven to the Saifabad police station, and the dead body was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination by the Saifabad police station. Sri M. Satish Kumar deposed that, on enquiry, the driver had informed him that he did not know how the accident had occurred and that, when he heard passengers shouting about an accident, he had noticed from the side mirror of the bus that a pedestrian had fallen down at the rear wheel of the bus. In his statement the conductor of the bus Sri M. Bheemaiah stated that the driver had not stopped the bus at Lakdikapul stage, had taken it to Saifabad police station and, when he enquired why he had not stopped at Lakdikapul, the driver had informed him that an accident had taken place. The enquiry officer held that when bus No. AAZ 9909, which was operating from Khairatabad to Nampally, (proceeding towards Charminar), passed Nirankari bridge, the petitioner had taken the vehicle to the extreme right side of t