THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.2108 of 2019

ORDER:

Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents-TSRTC.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the respondents’ corporation as driver in February, 2012 and his service was regularized w.e.f. 01.09.2014 and while he was working under the control of the respondent No.4, he was suspended from service and charged with following charge vide

common proceedings, dated 01.06.2017:

“For having driven the bus No.AP 25Z 0083 in rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation and dashed the Honda Active bearing No.TS02EM8029 coming in opposite direction while the bus was overtaking the sand lorry (turned right to Venkatapur village) at about 17.20 hours on 14.05.2017 near Gumlampur X Road V. VenkatapurChowrasta on route Warangal-Nizamabad while performing 06.20 hours Warangal service resulted in the rider of Honda Activa Sri Umar S/o. Sri Meer Zaheed Ali aged 20 years died

on the spot and other pillion riders sustained injuries which constitutes misconduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (ix) (a) & (xxix) of TSRTC, Employees (conduct)

Reg.1963.”

3. Aggrieved by the above said charge memo, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, who in turn passed an order, dated 29.11.2017 reinstating him into service by imposing the following punishments:

“Deferred annual increments next fall due for a period of two years which shall have effect on future increments with cumulative effect and the period between date of removal and date of reinstatement into service shall be treated as not on duty for all purposes.”

4. It is further averred that the petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No.2 and the said revision was rejected vide, order dated 15.02.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the above incident took place due to careless riding of motor cycle rider and taking disciplinary action against the petitioner by respondent No.4 is against the principles of natural justice and also stated that the Superintendent (T), who made spot inspection, has submitted a report in which he has categorically stated that the incident occurred due to fault of motor cycle rider as he himself dashed the bus by overtaking lorry and without considering the above facts, respondent No.4 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for the accident while submitting the Joint Accident Committee report dated 24.05.2017 along with another Depot Manager before issuing the charge sheet. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 was biased against the petitioner and imposed the punishment of removal from service. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a memo to that extent. It is further stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not take into consideration of the spot inspection report, evidence of the petitioner as well as the service conductor given in the enquiry and thus stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed an error in ignoring the valid evidence. He further stated that during the removal period he was remained un-

employee as he was pursuing the departmental remedies and in view of the punishment imposed he lost two increments with cumulative effect and if the suspension period is not treated as ‘duty period’ he would sustain loss in future increments and thus prayed to allow the present writ petition.

6. In a counter filed by the respondents it is stated that the fatal accident was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner which resulted death of the rider of two-wheeler. The respondent corporation will not only be burdened with payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased but also pay wages and arrears of increments if the punishment is set aside. It is submitt