Disciplinary proceedings must be based on credible evidence; mere involvement in an accident does not imply negligence without supporting proof.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Pradeep Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner Kuber Nath Pathak was driving a heavy transport vehicle, a passenger bus, of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation as a regular driver while he met with an accident on 20.3.2001 with a light motor vehicle a Maruti Van. The incident was fatal one and resulted in the death of four passenger on board maruti van. Claim petition was filed by the dependents which came to be allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

3. An internal departmental enquiry report was submitted by Senior Centre Incharge on 20.3.2001 and resultently the petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet for alleged negligence in driving the bus that resulted in fatal accident with a light motor vehicle. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges and took a plea that the report submitted by the Senior Centre Incharge did exonerate the petitioner from any such charge of negligence. The enquiry officer proceeded to hold oral enquiry but recorded a fact that officer on whose report petitioner was charge-sheeted did not respond to the call of the enquiry officer in order to prove his report. This enquiry report has been brought on record as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit. On the basis of enquiry report so submitted, petitioner was found to be guilty of negligence in driving the bus of U.P. Road Transport Corporation on the fateful day and the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service and also denied him salary for the period he had remained under suspension. Thus, reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice stood rejected.

4. The petitioner represented the matter to the Managing Director virtually by way of appeal as the order of removal was passed by the Regional Manager but the said representation/appeal also came to be dismissed by the Managing Director, Varanasi Division holding that a huge amount of compensation was paid to the dependents of the deceased could not be recovered from the delinquent employee. Thus, his representation was rejected and the appellate authority affirmed the order of removal from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order passed by the Regional Manager as well as of the Managing Director has made the following submissions:

(I) Any comment or report of the Regional Manager upon the Senior Incharge of the Centre who conducted spot inspection and found the petitioner to be not negligent was not to be believed until the Regional Manager making comment upon such report had appeared and proved his comments.

(II) There was no evidence available with the respondent regarding alleged negligence in driving the bus of the Corporation by the petitioner on the fateful day, more especially when the report had come to this effect that the sight seen showed that the bus driver tried to save the accident and therefore, slightly hitting the car got landed in a ditch. The sight scene prepared, therefore, proved there to be no negligence on the part of the petitioner but same was wholly illegally disbelieved and thus findings are perverse being against the weight of evidence and the findings are basically based on surmises and conjectures.

(III) Once it has come in the enquiry that both the vehicles were in speed then only because the accident had resulted in the fatality of four persons on board light motor vehicle will not ipso facto result in presumable negligence as to hold the petitioner guilty of accident. The appellate authority was not justified in affirming the order of the disciplinary authority based on perverse findings returned by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report and was also not justifed in affirming the order on the ground that amount paid as a compensation to the dependent was not recoverable from the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contested the matter and