Departmental proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and charges against an employee must be established based on the material presented.

ORDER :

1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed by the respondent-corporation in the capacity of a driver vide order dated 17.04.1991. The petitioner was initially engaged on contractual basis however, vide order dated 18.02.2006, services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 10.01.2006. On 29.04.2007, the bus No. RJ-22-P-1137, driven by the petitioner from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer, on its way, met with an accident near Barli resulting in death of three persons riding on a motorcycle. A charge-sheet dated 16.05.2007, was served upon the petitioner, alleging inter-alia that due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the bus met with an accident causing the death of three persons. Further, it was alleged that due to petitioner’s negligence, the bus had been seized by the police resulting in non-completion of journey, thereby causing financial loss and damage to reputation of the respondent-corporation. The charge-sheet dated 16.05.2007 lastly stated that proceedings will mandatorily be conducted as per the provisions of Rajasthan State Transport Workers’ Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter as ‘Standing Orders of 1965’).

2. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet dated 16.05.2007 vide letter dated 04.06.2007 denying the charges levelled against him. In the reply, it was stated that the accident occurred when the petitioner pursuing to overtake a tractor, asked for side and in the process, a motorcycle with three passengers also trying to overtake the same tractor, suddenly came to the left side of the road resulting in collision with the bumper of the bus of the respondent-corporation. It was further stated that the petitioner in order to prevent the collision, drove to the right side of the road but to no avail as motorcycle-rider rode in violation of traffic rules.

3. The disciplinary authority dissatisfied with the petitioner’s reply appointed one Shri J.P. Sharma on 06.06.2007 as enquiry officer. An enquiry was conducted the enquiry officer as per the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders of 1965. The enquiry officer after thoroughly going through the documents and examining the witnesses, prepared the enquiry whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 16.05.2007 were found not to be proved. However, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 12.11.2007 appointed one Shri O.P. Verma (hereinafter referred to as ‘second enquiry officer’) as new enquiry officer for conducting inquiry afresh. Thereupon, second enquiry officer submitted enquiry report (hereinafter referred to as ‘subsequent enquiry report’) dated 17.12.2007 holding the charges levelled in the charge sheet 16.05.2007 to be proved as against the petitioner. The findings arrived at by the second enquiry officer in subsequent enquiry report were accepted by the disciplinary authority which in turn vide office order dated 30.09.2009 imposed punishment of termination upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against order dated 30.09.2009 before Executive Director, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2010, passed by the appellate-authority. Aggrieved by order dated 30.09.2009 as affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.11.2010, present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that immediately after the unfortunate accident which transpired on 29.04.2007, one Shri Balkishan, J.E.N. working in respondent-corporation, was sent to the accident site for enquiring and preparing a report of the incident. Shri Balkishan during cross examination, admitted that the motorcycle overtook from wrong side. It was also admitted that the petitioner is partially responsible for the accident. Counsel further submitted that all the witnesses, examined by the enquiry officer stood the test of cross examination stating that the bus was not driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner c