Md. Imamuddin vs Regional Manager

Heard Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing Counsel for the respondent corporation.

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect is bad, arbitrary, illegal by setting aside the final order dated 27.01.2006 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequential proceedings dated 09.11.2011 of the 1st respondent herein to allow the increments.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was appointed as driver on 18.10.1986 and his services were regularized on 16.02.1987 and since then he worked to the utmost satisfaction to the superiors in the respondent corporation.

b) On 01.10.2004, while the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP 09 Z 7766 on route Habibnagar to Charminar at Railway Bridge Talabkatta, he stopped bus at Talabkatta stage, the passengers were alighted and some passengers boarded into bus, then after instructions of the conductor, the petitioner moved the bus further, and then he was informed that a person was laid down on the road and informed the same to the police station and that the petitioner was ignorant about the accident.

c) Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued alleging that the petitioner driven the vehicle with rash and negligent manner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and that a mechanical enquiry was conducted and final order dated 27.01.2006 was issued by imposing punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

d) Against  the  said  final  order  dated  27.01.2006,  the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent i.e. Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region, but the same was also rejected on 28.03.2008.

e) Against the said final order, the petitioner preferred Review Petition and the said punishment was modified to postponement of annual increment for a period of one and half year with cumulative effect from two years.

f) The petitioner submitted that the pedestrian while attempting to cross the road without observing the vehicles, all of sudden contacted with the bus at rare side and the same was opined by the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee and therefore, he shall not suffer with the said punishment.

g) Calendar Case No.1043 of 2004 filed by the police before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 06.11.2007 as the petitioner was found not guilty.

h) The petitioner submitted that the delay or latches in filing the writ petition are being an illiterate workman and he is not aware of the limitation and that due to financial loss or lack of knowledge, he could not approach the Court within a reasonable time, which is not intentional and that relied on judgments of the Apex Court in 2000 (9) SCC 496 and AIR 1996 SC 669. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition.

The counter filed by the respondents, in brief, as follows:

a) The respondents specifically stated in their counter that the accident occurred, enquiry was conducted and opinion of the Joint Accident Enquiry Committee obtained and on 27.01.2006 punishment of deferment of annual increment imposed for a period of two years which had the effect on the petitioner’s future increments. The said punishment imposed was however, modified in review petition filed by the petitioner vide proceedings of the Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region dated 09.11.2011. However, on 06.11.2007, the petitioner was acquitted in Calendar Case No.1043 of 2004 registered against the petitioner.

b) The respondents stated that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is on a different burden of proof and the evidence in the enquiry is on a different burden of proof and that the evidence in the enquiry is based on the preponderance of evidence.

c) The authority under the disciplinary proceedings have followed the procedure contemplated under CC&A Regulations and have not violated the principles of natural justice.

d) Therefore, there is no error apparent on record to warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the record.

A bare perusal of the judgment dated 06.11.2007 in C.C.No.1043 of 2004 referred to and brought on record at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, which is the judgment of the Court of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at para 16 reads as under:

“According to prosecution, PW.2, 3 and 4 are eye witnesses. But they did not state in their evidence, that they actually witnessed the accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 7766. PW.5, who is said to be one of the panch witness for the inquest also did not support the version of the prosecution. Rough sketch of thescene of offence was not prepared and filed into the Court. No person from the vicinity was examined to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Prosecution failed to adduce cogent, satisfactory and reliable evidence against the accused. In the absence of reliable evidence, accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that in view of the fact that it has not been proved that there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner and since it is not proved the petitioner caused accident, the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contend that the judgment in C.C.No.1043 of 2004, which is in favour of the petitioner is a judgment based only on technicalities and further that the departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case are two different proceedings and hence, they cannot be equated, and that there are clear findings of the primary authority that the petitioner failed to take necessary precautions to prevent the accident.

This Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and considering the petitioner’s length of service of more than 19 years as on the date of imposition of punishment and further taking into consideration the fact that the trial Court gave a clear finding that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner herein and that it is not proved that the petitioner caused the said accident, this Court opines that the punishment imposed on the petitioner should be modified and the same is accordingly modified from deferment of annual increment for one and half years with cumulative effect to deferment of annual increment for one and half years without cumulative effect. This Court, however, observes that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits or arrears of monetary benefits.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.