IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date : 09.02.2026 WRIT PETITION No.25714 of 2007 Between :

Ramulu.

.. Petitioner AND The Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.

.. Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 02.12.2004 and 24.02.2005 respectively passed by the respondents.

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

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the respondent Corporation on 07.03.2000. On 23.10.2004, while the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP-11Z-964 from Mahabubnagar to Hyderabad, dashed against the lorry bearing No.MH- 31-AP-1668, as a result of which, the front left side wind glass and side “D” type glass were broken. No other damages were caused to the bus and no one was injured in the bus.

(b) The 3^rd respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 15.11.2007 to explain as to why his name shall not be deleted from the approved list/selection list. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered and after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 3^rd respondent passed the final order of termination from service on 02.12.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent.

(c) The 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated

05.03.2005 modified the order of the 3rd respondent and directed re-engagement of the petitioner as a fresh casual driver and the period from the date of termination till he reports for duty was treated as ‘NOT ON DUTY’ for all purposes. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accident was not occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. The lorry in question which was moving ahead of the bus, suddenly stopped and the petitioner applied breaks and due to failure of the brakes, the vehicle could not be stopped, as a result of which, the bus slowly touched the lorry. The front left side wind glass and side “D” type glass were broken and no other damages were caused to the bus and no one was injured in the bus.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed order dated 02.12.2004 terminating the petitioner from service. On appeal, the 2^nd respondent, without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, while modifying the order of the 3^rd respondent directed re-engagement of the petitioner as a fresh casual driver and the period from the date of termination till he reports for duty was erroneously treated as ‘NOT ON DUTY’ for all purposes. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to grant continuity of service and attendant benefits and allow the writ petition.

5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was engaged as casual driver on daily wage basis and was working under the control of Depot Manager, Mahabubnagar. The petitioner while performing duty as driver on 23-10-2004 on bus bearing No. AP 11Z 964 (Hi.Tech service) on route Hyderabad to Mahabubnagar, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused a major accident at 13.30 hrs. The petitioner without taking precautionary measures dashed against the parked lorry. On account of the accident, the vehicle driven by the petitioner was extensively damaged.

(b) The Asst. Engineer (Mechanical) and the Traffic Supervisor attended the spot of accident and on inspection of the vehicle, it was observed by the Asst. Engineer (Mech.) that there was no mechanical defects and the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner.

(c) The Assistant Engineer (Mech) reported that the vehicle body was damaged beyond repairs at the depot