ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the imposition of punishment of postponing the annual increments fall next due for a period of two years which shall have the effect on his future increments besides treating the suspension period as not on duty vide proceedings No.01/2(10)/2007-YGT, dated 25.01.2008 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his Proc.No.PA/19(23)/ 2011-RM.NLG, dated 20.07.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined as a driver in the respondent Corporation on 07.03.1997 after undergoing due selection process and subsequently his services were regularized w.e.f.01.01.1999. While he was driving the vehicle bearing No.AP11Z 1746 on 22.05.2007 from Nalgonda to Yadagirigutta, one motor cycle being driven by its rider along with a pillion rider came in opposite direction in high speed and while overtaking the lorry bearing No.HR338J-3067, they came into contact with the bus driven by the petitioner on right side front bumper when the bus was in stationed condition, due to which, the rider of the motor cycle fell down and the lorry ran over on the rider of the motor cycle, for which, the petitioner was suspended besides initiation of criminal proceedings in C.C. No.340 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, which was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 20.07.2013. Further, a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 02.06.2007 framing one charge and domestic enquiry was conducted and finally the Enquiry Officer held that the charge was proved, for which the third respondent imposed the punishment of postponing of annual increment which next falls due for a period of two years, which shall have effect on future increments (in other words ‘reduction of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect’) besides treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. As the appeal and revision were rejected vide orders dated 28.03.2008 and 20.07.2008, respectively, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

3) Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Krishna Kartik, learned counsel, representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Corporation.

4) It has been contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle while overtaking the lorry proceeding in his front side and having held so, holding the petitioner guilty to the extent of little lack of anticipation is nothing but perverse and based on departmental bias. It is further contended that in the enquiry, the Superintendent (T) of Yadagirigutta was examined in support of the charge. He deposed that petitioner has taken maximum care by taking the bus to extreme left side anticipating the movements of the motor cycle rider and that motor cycle rider was rash and negligent in driving the motor bike while overtaking the lorry going on his front side. Therefore, it can be construed that the charge leveled against the petitioner was not proved. It is further contended that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner were ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 20.07.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ramannapet in C.C.No.340 of 2007 wherein the learned Magistrate has categorically held that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner in causing the accident. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the writ petition.

5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the charge against the petitioner was held proved by the Enquiry Officer and that due to the accident, the rider of the motor cycle died on the spot. It is further contended that if the petitioner had reduced the speed of the