Tapan Sen, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed off at this stage.

2. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the order dated 8.6.2001 (Annexure 6) passed by the Administrator. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. Patna (Respondent No. 2) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was sought to be dismissed from service. The petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the order dated 14.6.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the Divisional Manager. BSRTC. Jamshedpur Division (Respondent No. 5) communicating the order of dismissal to the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner he was appointed as a driver of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity and precision as BSRTC). On 17.2.1993 he received a charge-sheet dated 15.2.1993 (Annexure-1) wherein it was biter alia, stated that while returning from Patna as a driver of a Deluxe bus of the BSRTC bearing Registration No. BR 16A 0980. he caused an accident of the said vehicle near Mandu on 13.8.1992. The petitioner did not give any information to the Police, nor did he file any cause in reply to the Notice to show-cause issued by the Divisional Manager on 3.9.1992. On enquiry, it was learnt that the accident had been caused on account of the negligence of the petitioner causing loss to the extent of Rs. 1,200/- to the Corporation.

4. The aforesaid is the background/ narration of statement of allegations which is contained in the charge-sheet. Thereafter. this charge-sheet levelled charges of negligence, dereliction of duties and indiscipline. After having levelled the aforementioned charges, the petitioner was directed to show-cause as to why he should not be removed from service for enforcing unnecessary expenditure upon the corporation.

5. What has been stated above is the translated version of the charge-sheet. This charge-sheet basically and principally shows three things:--

(A) that there was an accident:

(B) that the petitioner was charged for having caused an accident and. therefore, was said to have been negligent in his duties; and

(C) it was said that on account of the aforementioned accident, a sum of Rs. 1,200/- had to be spent by the corporation towards repair of the vehicle.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge-sheet straight away proceeds to record that an enquiry had also been conducted in which it had been found that because of the negligence of the petttioner. a sum of Rs. 1,200/- had been enforced upon the corporation towards expenditure which was incurred towards repair ot the vehicle in question.

According to the respondents, the accident took place due to sheer negligence of the petitioner. "Negligence" by itself does not amount to a misconduct unless the factors leading to such negligence establishes beyond doubt that it was because of such negligence that was responsible for causing the happening of an event/situation causing grave loss or danger. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation and misconduct has been listed under Standing Order No. 21. Sub Clause 12 of the said Standing Order says that "neglect of duty resulting in loss to the Corporation is a misconduct. "But in the instant case, what was the nature of neglect has not been established. By merely saying that the petitioners negligence caused the accident is not enough. Mere mechanical repetition of the allegation of negligence and/ or sheer negligence seems to have become the watch-word of the BSRTC in the instant case.

8. In the instant case a relevant document which needs to be taken note of is the enquiry report and which is contained at An-nexure-3 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the said enquiry report it would he apparent that the petitioner had a