O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned award passed by the first respondent in I.D.No.150 of 2004, dated 28.05.2015 and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages and continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as a permanent Driver at Palani Branch-II of the second respondent Corporation from 01.05.1996. On 27.10.1999, he was posted to work in the 2nd shift in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57- N-1005 which was running between Palani and Kaniyur. The said bus was unfit to run in the route, because of its defects. Further, only 20 days before, the bus met with an accident and it was pulled into river due to flood and kept therein for two days. Thereafter, the petitioner and another Driver, who were posted to work in the said bus, recorded daily defects in the important parts of the bus, namely, steering and brake. The second respondent, instead of permanently setting right the defects, carried out only temporary repair works and directed the petitioner and other Driver to run the bus. On 26.10.1999, the said Driver, namely, Balaji, wrote in the log-book of the bus that there was a chance for accident, if the defects are not set right. On 27.10.1999, the said Driver refused to drive the bus due to its defects. After some repair work, the bus was taken for the 1st shift. The petitioner was asked to drive the bus in the 2nd shift on 27.10.1999. The petitioner drove the bus very carefully, but with difficulties. If the petitioner refused to drive the bus, he would have to face the action from the second respondent. Therefore, he drove the bus. While so, three cyclists came on the opposite direction and on seeing them, the petitioner gave horn and further, slowed down the speed of the bus. At the time, the bus got shaken and a sound came from front. The said three cyclists were hit by the bus. Thus, the accident happened.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not at all responsible for the accident. The petitioner was forced to drive the bus with mechanical defects. However, the Police filed a final report against the petitioner and the Branch Manager of Depot. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalaipettai, convicted the petitioner and imposed him with the punishment of imprisonment for one year, by his judgment dated 06.02.2002. As against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.58 of 2002. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, by its order dated 24.09.2002, dismissed the appeal by confirming his conviction in the case, but modified the punishment of imprisonment from one year to six months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the Revision before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1865 of 2002. This Court, by its order dated 01.02.2003, set aside the petitioner's conviction by giving a finding that the mechanical defects in the bus, as pointed out by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, was the sole reason for the accident. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

4. During the course of enquiry by the Department, the petitioner wanted log-book to be produced for enquiry. The log-book was not produced. However, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner is responsible for the accident. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service. In the second show cause notice, dated 16.10.2000, the petitioner reiterated about the non-production of log-book. Had the log- book been produced before the Enquiry Officer, the finding of the Enquiry Officer would have been different. No proper opportunity was given to the petitioner during oral enquiry. This issue was raised before the trial Court in I.D.No.150 of 2004. The learned trial Judge has not given any finding as to whether non-production of log-bo