The punishment of removal from service for a fatal accident is disproportionate if the disciplinary authority ignores mitigating circumstances and fails to follow the rationalization and standardization of punishments prescribed in the Corporation's Regulations.

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 2nd respondent-Corporation on 05.08.1998 and posted at the 5th respondent-depot. It is contended that the petitioner's service was regularized on 01.08.1999. It is further contended that, on 06.07.2019, a fateful day, in the early hours, while he was driving a bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0606 enroute to Kosigi to Bangalore, met with an accident near Y Junction, Penugonda. As a result, the co-driver, who was sleeping in the seat meant for taking rest, received grievous injuries, and while being shifted to a hospital, he succumbed to injuries.

3. In this regard, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after placing the petitioner under suspension and issuing a charge sheet vide proceedings dated 30.07.2019, for being involved in a fatal accident due to rash and negligent driving. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 02.12.2019, stating that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner has submitted his objections to the enquiry officer's report. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 5th respondent concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner has been proved beyond doubt, and observed that the petitioner caused the death of a co-driver and injuries to 6 passengers travelling in the bus while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, a show-cause notice dated 23.12.2019 was issued, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service.

4. The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the said show-cause notice was found to be not satisfactory by the 5th respondent. Accordingly, he issued impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not negligent in driving the vehicle. The bus was moving at 50 kmph at the time of the accident. A lorry ahead of the petitioner’s vehicle suddenly took a right turn, and another lorry, parked on the left side of the road, was without any parking lights. Immediately, on noticing the same, the petitioner tried to take the right side. However, another bus (a Volvo) approaching from behind crossed the bus the petitioner was driving. During the maneuvering process, the petitioner had to apply a sudden brake, causing damage to the bus and grievous injuries to the co-driver. He contends that the said incident was accidental, but due to unforeseen events, he had to apply the brake suddenly, which took the life of the co-driver. That was purely an accident, not a willful one.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. He further contends that the regulations framed by APSRTC provides for a punishment of reversion to the lower cadre in case of fatal accidents as the petitioner is not solely responsible for the accident. Thus, pleads for set-aside of the proceedings and reinstatement.

7. The respondent-Corporation filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner with his rash and negligent driving caused the death of a person and failure to take safety measures such as maintaining 50 ft. distance from the vehicle which is running front side vehicle. Had the pet