- (1.) This writ petition is preferred by a driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenging the correctness and validity of the proceedings dated 25.7.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent herein declining to interfere with the orders of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Eluru and thus refusing to exercise the power of review of the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner appears to have been recruited to the service of the APSRTC as a driver in the year 1987. It was his claim that he was recognized as one of the careful and cautious drivers of the corporation. But, however, all due to sheer bad luck, while he was operating one of the buses on 4.3.1995 on route Bhimavaram to Penugonda in West Godavari District, an accident had occasioned involving the bus in which an old lady fell down on the road and later on succumbed to the injuries. Though the petitioner has claimed that he is not responsible in any manner for the accident and that it had occasioned all due to the carelessness and contribution of the old lady, however, the APSRTC has proceeded against the petitioner construing it as a mis-conduct and ordered for disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him. Based upon the adverse findings recorded by the domestic tribunal, the petitioner who was held guilty of the charge of rash and negligent driving of the bus and thus causing the death of an individual, the Depot Manager, Bhimavaram Depot of APSRTC passed orders on 10.10.1995 inflicting the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Since an appeal would lie there against to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, the petitioner has preferred such an appeal. Convinced by the explanation offered by the petitioner that the bus was already carrying passengers to its full capacity and that after it negotiated a narrow bridge at Marteru village and the bus has not yet been stopped and without any regard for the heavy vehicular traffic flowing on either side, several passengers started making efforts to gain entry into the bus even before it was brought to a complete halt and in that process, one of the old lady prospective passenger who is accompanied by her son-in-law could not get proper hold of the bus to gain entry therein and consequently slipped and fell on the road. Therefore, the petitioner is nowhere responsible for causing the accident. This contention of the petitioner was also vouch safed by the son-in-law of the said old passenger. After taking all these facts into account and consideration, the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, West Godavari District at Eluru ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service and modified the punishment to that of postponing the next annual grade increment which falls due for a period of two years which shall have effect of postponing his future increments besides treating his period from the date of removal to the date of rejoining to duty as not on duty. He was posted to Narsapur Depot. Accordingly, the writ petitioner reported to duty before the Deputy Manager, Narsapur Depot and he was also medically examined for ascertaining his fitness. Since he was found fit for A1 category on 22.4.1996 and has also undergone the necessary training between 4.5.1996 to 23.5.1996 at the Zonal Staff Training College, Gannavaram, the Depot Manager, Narsapur Depot started entertaining him to duty from 27.5.1996 onwards. However, the petitioner has not filed any review petition in accordance with the Regulation 23 of the APSRTC Employees before the Regional Manager within the time limit specified. For the first time, he submitted a review petition only on 29.4.2000. The reason ascribed for taking so much of time for preferring the review petition, was that he was simultaneously prosecuted before the competent criminal court in CC No. 193 of 1995 for causing death by accident. The criminal court by its judgment dated 17.2.2000 has acquitted him on merits and held the petitioner as not guilty of the criminal charge laid against him. As soon as he has obtained a certified copy of the judgment dated 17.2.2000, he submitted the Review Petition on 29.4.2000 to the Regional Manager. However, by his order dated 25.7.2000, the Regional Manager has rejected this review petition only on the ground that the same has been submitted after a lapse of four (4) years one month after the appellate authority has passed orders on 10.4.1996. Challenging this order of the Regional Manager, the present writ petition is filed.
(3.) Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel at great length.;