S. Palanivelu, J.

This appeal is filed against the order, dated 21.01.2003, made in W.P.No.5354 of 2000, whereby the order of dismissal passed by the second appellant, dated 112. 1998, which was confirmed by the first appellant in appeal, dated 210. 1999, was set aside, with a direction to reinstate the respondent/writ petitioner, with all consequential benefits.

.2. Respondent, who filed the Writ Petition, was serving as a Driver in the second appellant Corporation. While he was driving a bus, bearing registration No.T.N.45/N/1045 along Karur-Erode main road, an accident took place near Nathamedu Junction, by a head-on collision of the bus with a tipper lorry, bearing registration No.T.N.33/Y-5006. In the gruesome accident, ten passengers, who were travelling in the bus, died and seven others were injured and both the vehicles got damaged. With regard to the accident, the Conductor of the bus, by name Murugesan, lodged a complaint with Karur Police Station in Crime No.348 of 1998, in which he stated that while the bus was being driven by its driver on the left side of the road, the tipper lorry came from opposite direction and dashed against the bus, causing the accident. A case was registered under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC, against the driver of the tipper lorry, by name Ravi. The said case was taken on file in C.C.No.643 of 1999 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Karur, and the said Court, on 05.08.2003, convicted the accused Ravi under the above said sections with rigorous imprisonment for a specified period, besides slapping a fine on him. There was no appeal from the said judgment.

3. In the meanwhile, the second appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, by issuing a charge memo, containing four charges. The gravamen of the charge was that the driver, by his rash and negligent driving, drove the bus to the central part of the road and dashed the tipper lorry head-on, thereby causing the fatal accident, resulting in the death of ten passengers and injuring seven others and hence, he was also liable to be punished.

4. The respondent submitted an explanation, refuting the charges. Since the management was not satisfied with the said explanation, a domestic enquiry by a retired District Judge was ordered and conducted, who, on 26.09.1998, gave a report, holding that the drivers of both the vehicles were responsible for the accident. He also rendered a finding that the charges framed against the respondent/workman were also proved. Based upon the said finding, the second appellant passed an order of dismissal of the respondent from service on 112. 1998, whereupon, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the first respondent, which appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of dismissal. Hence, the respondent filed the Writ Petition, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the orders impugned and for reinstatement with all attendant benefits.

5. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition, as prayed for, with an observation that since the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the management could not take a different view, for the purpose of terminating the respondent from service, as the charge levelled against the writ petitioner was only on the basis of the accident. Aggrieved over the said finding, the management has preferred this appeal before this Court.

.6. Though the Enquiry Officer has found the respondent guilty of the charges, the other attending circumstances ought to be looked into. The legal heirs of the deceased persons and the injured had chosen to file claim petitions for compensation before three various Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. A batch of claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Karur, where a common award was passed