This Writ Petition is preferred by a driver employed with the 1st respondent Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth, referred to, for brevity, as ‘the Corporation’), challenging the validity of the order of removal passed against him on 17.09.2011 by the 3rd respondent Depot Manager, Kamareddy of the Corporation and the orders passed on 05.05.2012 by the 2nd respondent Regional Manager, Nizamabad, substituting the punishment of removal with that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages, for a period of one year, which will have its effect on future increments, while treating the intervening period as period not spent on duty.

The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Corporation as a driver in the year 1985 and that his services have been subsequently regularized with effect from 01.08.1996. While he was working as a driver attached to the Depot at Kamareddy, the bus driven by him bearing No. AP 11Z 1126 was involved in an accident at about 16.00 hours on 10.11.2010 resulting in the death of an individual. Hence, the writ petitioner was suspended on 23.11.2010 from service and he was also subjected to a disciplinary enquiry by drawing a charge sheet on the same day. The sum and substance of the charge drawn against the petitioner was that he has driven the bus rashly and negligently, without taking precautionary measures and due to lack of anticipation on his part, he caused an accident to a pedestrian, who was trying to cross the road from left to right side of the road resulting in his death. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 29.11.2010 and disputed that he has driven the bus rashly or negligently. It is also asserted by the petitioner that he has been driving the bus very slowly, as, just a moment earlier, he has stopped the bus at the old bus stand of Kamareddy where several passengers have alighted and hence, he is not at fault and he cannot be penalized. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer examined the conductor of the bus at the enquiry. The petitioner was also examined by the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. After issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to impose on him the punishment of removal from service and notwithstanding the explanation offered by him protesting for imposition of such a grave punishment, the 3rd respondent Depot Manager proceeded further in the matter and passed orders on 17.09.2011 imposing on him the punishment of removal from service. As an appeal would lie there against, in terms of Regulation 22 of the A.P.S.R.T.C.

Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Nizamabad, who mechanically rejected the same on 06.01.2012. Since Regulation 29 of the aforementioned Regulations provides a further opportunity of review petition being preferred to the Regional Manager, the petitioner sought for such a remedy. The 2nd respondent Regional Manager passed orders on 05.05.2012, setting out that he has taken a lenient view in the matter and ordered for substituting the punishment of removal from service with that of reduction of his pay by two incremental stages, for a period of one year, which shall have its effect on future increments apart from treating the interregnum period between 17.09.2011 and 05.05.2012 as period ‘not spent on duty’. Challenging the legality and validity of the orders passed on 17.09.2011 by the Depot Manager, removing him from service and the modified punishment order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Regional Manager, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC on behalf of the respondents.

Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no witness has b