ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Appellate Order No.PA/20(45)/2018-DVM:SDPT, dated 15.02.2019 of the 3rd respondent to the extent of imposing the modified penalty of deferment of annual increments next falls due for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period of removal from service to the date of reporting to duty at the unit posted as NOT ON DUTY for all purposes viz., P.F., Gratuity, Leave, Increment, promotion and Seniority of drivers as confirmed by the Revision Order dated 30.06.2020 is unjust contrary to the T.S.R.T.C. Employees’(CC&A) Regulations, 1967 and Circulars, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the same and direct the respondents to treat the period of removal as on duty for all purposes in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders….”

[reproduce verbatim]

2. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC representing the respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent No.1-Corporation in July, 2007 and his services were regularized on 01.01.2010. On 09.07.2018, the petitioner was allotted duty on 12:00 hours Dubbaka-5 night out services on bus No.TS-15-Z-0160. While the bus was proceeding slowly to Jubilee Bus Station at about 21:20 hoursat Thumkunta near S.B.I, the petitioner, on observing that one scooterist was coming at high speed from Mandaipalli road without observing traffic conditions, applied sudden brakes duly blowing horn and stopped the bus, but the scooterist, unable to control his old scooter, dashed against the side of the bus and fell down. He immediately got up and stated that he has not sustained any injuries. The persons gathered there also stated that there was no fault on the part of the bus driver/petitioner. Though the scooterist did not sustain any bleeding injuries and wanted to go home, the public who gathered there, called 108 Ambulance and forcibly sent him to hospital for checkup, as a matter of precaution. In fact, the petitioner had taken all precautions to avert the accident, i.e., by blowing horn and applied sudden brakes. However, on a complaint lodged by family members of the scooterist, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and the case is now pending before the concerned criminal Court. The respondent No.4 issued charge sheet dated 02.08.2018 alleging that the petitioner had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without taking precautions, due to which, the bus met with an accident with a scooter and the scooterist fell down, sustained injuries on his head, hands and legs and died while undergoing treatment at Gandhi hospital on 11.07.2018. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet on 06.08.2018. However, the respondent No.4, without considering the same, ordered an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, prepared an Accident Report stating that scooterist failed to observe the vehicles on the highway while crossing the road and therefore, he is responsible for the accident. However, the Enquiry Officer, without there being any material to show negligence on the part of the petitioner, simply stated that the petitioner is also responsible for the accident. The Enquiry Officer, basing on the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that at the accident spot, the scooterist tried to cross the highway from the right side, but failed and involved in the subject accident and if the scooterist had taken precautionary measures while crossing the highway, the accident might not have oc