IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.20415 OF 2007

22^nd January, 2026 Between:

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Narsampet Depot, Warangal District.

…Petitioner AND The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal and another …Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the award in I.D.No.99of 2004 dated 05.12.2006 on the file of the Labour Court at Warangal which was published in G.O.Rt.No.383 of Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Lab.I) Department dated 22.02.2007.

2. Heard Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(i) The petitioner Corporation is APSRTC, represented by its Law Officer. The respondent No.2 was initially engaged as a Driver on daily wage basis with effect from 19.11.1991, and his services were regularized with effect from 01.07.1994. During the course of his service, the respondent No.2 did not maintain a clean service record, and several penalties were imposed on him for cash and ticket irregularities, including deferment of increments and suspension.

(ii) On 15.04.1996, while the respondent No.2 was driving the bus bearing No. AP9Z-3820 on the route Parkal–Vempalli, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident resulting in the death of an elderly woman, namely Smt. Rathnamma. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Senior Traffic Inspector and, based on the enquiry report, a charge sheet dated 27.04.1996 was issued to the respondent No.2 for misconduct under Regulation 28(ix)(a&b) of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. After considering his explanation and not being satisfied with the same, a domestic enquiry was ordered by appointing a competent Enquiry Officer, who submitted his findings holding the charge proved against the respondent No.2.

(iii) Initially, a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for two years with cumulative effect was proposed. However, after considering his explanation and past service, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and imposed a minor penalty of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for two years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 28.08.1996. After a lapse of about six years, without exhausting departmental remedies such as appeal or review, the respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute. Upon failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal in I.D. No. 99 of 2004. Though the Labour Court held that the charge was proved, it interfered with the punishment and modified it by passing an award dated 05.12.2006. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking to set aside the impugned award.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court modified the punishment merely on the ground that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case. However, the Labour Court itself recorded a categorical finding that the respondent was guilty of rash and negligent driving. In view of the specific observations, the learned counsel contended that the present writ petition is liable to be allowed.

5. The relevant portion of the I.D. award reads as follows :-

“…As per the rough sketch there were skid marks for 85 feet and the bus turned across the road. Moreover petitioner also stated that he applied the brakes, but as there was brake roll the accident occurred and the enquiry officer specifically asked him whether he mentioned the same in the log sheet, he stated that he want to mention the same in the Narsakkapally stage in the meanwhile the accident occurred. The bus conductor will observe only the boarding and alighting passengers and it is the duty of the peti