Procedural fairness in labour enquiries requires opportunity for cross-examination and consideration of employee's arguments, reflecting the need for equitable treatment in disciplinary actions.

ORDER :

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“… to issue, a Writ Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature Writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to impugned award dt.9-2-2015 in ID No.20/2012 on the file of the 2^nd respondent communicated Vide G.O. Rt. No.117 dt.17.3.2015 in so far as not granting continuity service of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to award the petitioner's continuity of service with all consequential benefits, by holding the action of the respondents in not awarding continuity of service of the petitioner and further treating him as afresh driver as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14,16 of the Constitution of India and pass...”

2. Heard Sri CH. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:

That the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage driver in APSRTC in the year 1991, and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1995. Ever since his date of appointment, he is discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors, maintaining an unblemished record and achieving the targets fixed by the Corporation. That being so, on 18.06.2007, the petitioner was instructed to operate bus No.AP-11Z-1465 on the route Karimnagar – Nizamabad at 05:30 Day Out Service. Unfortunately, due to break failure, he could not stop the bus and ran on to the Nizamabad Platform No.21. He took all the precautions to avert the accident and there was no fault on his part. But the 3^rd respondent had issued Proceedings dated 28.06.2007 placing the petitioner under suspension and issued a charge memo as follows:

1. For having to take utmost care to avert any kind of accident while entering on Platform No.21 of Nizamabad point of Karimnagar Bus Station on 18.06.2007 while performing duty of 5.30 hours Karimnagar to Nizamabad, while coming from Karimnagar - II Depot to platform No.21.

2. For having failed to apply brakes of the bus to stop the bus at Nizamabad Plat Form No.21 of Karimnagar bus station on 18.6.2007 at about 6.00 hours. There by the bus driven by you at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, ploughed into Karimnagar Bus Station hitting to platform wall, pillars up to ordinary enquiry room thereby bus damaged, resulted to instantaneous death of woman, intending to board your bus and other four persons sustained injuries.

4. The respondents did not supply the relevant copies of documents like accident report, rough sketch and eyewitness statements etc., along with the chargesheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.07.2007 denying the two charges. Thereafter, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct proper enquiry and not given full pledged opportunity during the course of enquiry and he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner had specifically stated that on the date of the accident he had applied the brakes but due to heavy rain throughout the night, radial tyres, cement wet road, water stagnation before platform, brakes were rolled and radial tyres slipped on applying the brakes but there was no wanton mistake on petitioner’s side.

5. Apart from that the platform of Nizamabad secto