Ram Bilash Sharma vs Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Paribahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path and others

Honourable Mr. Justice, S.N. Hussain

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 16.09.1995 issued vide memo of1330 dated 25.09.1995 by which the Managing Director of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'' for the sake of brevity) (respondent of3) giving three punishments to the petitioner and also appellate order dated 14.06.1996 passed by the Chairman of the Corporation by which Appeal of21 of 1996 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Managing Director was confirmed.

It is not in dispute that petitioner is a driver in the Corporation and on the relevant day, i.e. 26.1.1992 he was driving Bus of BEA of2504 (Darbhanga-Ranchi) Delux Service, but while he was returning from Ranchi, his bus met with an accident at 5.45 A.M. at Mokamah due to sudden breakage of tyre rod and he was also injured and taken to the hospital by a person and was treated by a doctor and was released on 05.03.1992. However, in the meantime he was suspended by the Divisional Manager of the Corporation vide order dated 01.02.1992 and a charge sheet was served upon him on 12.04.1993 for rash driving and loss caused to the Corporation due to his negligence and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation before the officer on Special Duty.

Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his show cause before the officer on Special Duty, whereafter the enquiry was concluded and the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, which passed the impugned order dated 16.09.1995 which was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 14.06.1996 passed in Appeal of21 of 1996.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the tyre rod had broken and there was fog on the relevant date and he was driving his bus in a very low speed, but the accident took place due to breakage of tyre rod and hence there was no fault on the part of the petitioner who had been wrongly punished.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation and its authorities vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that both the authorities, namely the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail and only thereafter he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was driving rashly due to which accident had taken place and huge loss had accrued to the Corporation.

However, considering the averments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is an admitted fact that on the relevant date which fell in January there was fog and the accident had occurred due to breakage of tyre rod. This supports the contentions of the petitioner. It is also apparent that the breakage of tyre rod was not due to any rash driving, rather it was a mechanical accident which had taken place without any fault of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accident had taken place due to any act of the petitioner, nor there is any material to show that the petitioner was driving rashly at the relevant time.

So far the punishments given to the petitioner by the impugned orders are concerned, they are three fold. Firstly, Rs. 10,000.00 was directed to be realized from the petitioner for repair of the bus. Secondly, 1/3rd of Rs. 40,000.00, the cost of stolen articles of damage, was directed to be realised from the petitioner. Thirdly, nothing was directed to be paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance and the period of suspension was not to be counted for any service benefit of the petitioner.

So far the first and second punishments are concerned, no doubt the bus was damaged and the articles were stolen from damaged bus as after the accident the petitioner and the Khalasi and security guard had fled away from the place of occurrence and hence there is no occasion to interfere with the said punishments given to them.

So far the third punishment is concerned, it has already been found in the above mentioned paragraphs that the accident had taken place due to breakage of tyre rod and not due to any fault of the petitioner, especially when it is not in dispute that on the relevant date there was fog. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find that the said punishment is proper and justified especially when it is bound to affect the salary and emoluments of the petitioner till the date of his retirement and even beyond it with respect to the post retiral benefits. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing only that part of the impugned orders dated 16.09.1995 and 16.06.1996 by which the aforesaid 3rd punishment was given to the petitioner.