Shri T.C. Rajashekar Reddy vs The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Officer

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 5.10.2009 in I.D. No. 18/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore dismissing the dispute raised by the Petitioner.

Petitioner was working as Artisan in the Respondent-Corporation. On 22.6.2006 the Respondent unauthorisedly and negligently drove the bus bearing No. KA-07-F-726 in the depot at Ragepalli and hit against a driver by name K.V. Ravindra Babu and he died in the spot. For this misconduct, articles of charges were issued, enquiry was held and on 17.12.2005 an order of penalty dismissing the Petitioner from service came to be passed. Simultaneously, a criminal case came to be registered against the Petitioner in C.C. No. 236/2005 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and the same ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 4.7.2006.

Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of penalty of dismissal raised a dispute before the Labour Court u/s 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act. Before the labour Court both the parties adduced evidence and produced certain documents. The Labour Court on appreciation of the material on record, passed an order on 7.10.2008 holding the domestic enquiry as not fair, proper and valid. Thereafter, the Respondent examined one witness as M.W. 1 and produced certain documents. The labour Court on appreciation of the material on record, passed the impugned award holding that the charge levelled against the Petitioner as proved. Consequently, under the impugned award the Labour Court dismissed the dispute. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner firstly contends that the criminal case filed against the Petitioner in CC No. 236/2005 ended in acquittal. But the Labour Court committed an error in not taking into consideration the finding of the criminal court in CC. No. 236/2005. I perused the judgment of the criminal court in C.C. 236/2005 and i find that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 turned hostile before the criminal court. Therefore, the criminal court has not taken into consideration the evidence of these witnesses. In the circumstances, the criminal court held that the Respondents have failed to prove and establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of the criminal court in G.C. 236/2005 is not an honorable acquittal. If it is not an honorable acquittal, then the benefit of the same cannot be extended in the domestic enquiry.

Before the Labour Court Respondents have examined only one witness as M.W. 2. This witness is not an eve witness to the incident. Even though M.W. 2 is not an eye witness his evidence and the documents produced by him cannot be Totally ignored. From the evidence of M.W. 2, it is proved that on the date of accident on 22.6.2006 the Petitioner was working as artisan in Bagepalli depot. Further it is seen that the Petitioner was entrusted with the work of repairing the clutch of the bus bearing No. F-726. The Petitioner in his evidence also admits that he was working as Artisan on 22.6.2006 at Bagepalli depot. Petitioner further admits that he was entrusted with the work of repairing the clutch of the bus bearing No. F-726. Petitioner further admits that on account of taking bus in reverse direction, the driver K.V. Ravindra Babu died and he was present at that time in the depot. Petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet, claim statement and in his evidence had only denied the allegation that he had driven the vehicle. Petitioner has not stated in his defense as to who is the other person who drove the vehicle. In the cross-examination, Petitioner admits that when there are more buses in the depot and if the buses which are subjected to repairs are completed then they will be driven outside the depot and will be parked there. Admittedly, the Petitioner repaired the clutch of the bus in question. In these circumstances, the Labour Court held that the Petitioner drove the bus causing the death of Ravindra Babu.

It is seen from the record that the Petitioner was appointed as Artisan in the year 2004 and the incident in question had taken place on 22.6.2005. The Petitioner had an unblemished service record. This is the first incident. There is no deliberate invention on the part of the Petitioner in causing the accident in question. Having regard to the age of the Petitioner, the unblemished record of service and the gravity of charge, I am of the considered opinion that the penalty of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. But at the same time, the Petitioner is liable for punishment against whom the charge is proved. In the facts and circumstances of this case, denial of backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement will be the appropriate punishment.

For the reasons stated above, the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned award dated 5.10.2009 and the order of penalty dated 17.12.2005 are hereby set aside.

iii) Respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service for the limited purpose of retrial benefits and without backwages.

iv) Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner within four weeks from today and to pay current wages.