1. This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned proceedings of removal passed in proceedings No.E2/292(3)/2000-NZB, dated 29.05.2001 and also the proceedings of respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.Steno/19(99)/2001-DVM:NZB, dated 14.08.2001, in not granting all the consequential benefits and also in reducing the petitioner pay by 3 incremental stages permanently besides treating the removal period as not on duty, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner was appointed as driver on 08.04.1987 in the respondents’ Corporation through due process of selection and his services were regularized on 01.07.1988; that while the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP 10Z 3056 on 04.09.2000 on route Nizamabad-Banswada and when he reached near Malkapoor Village, some buffalos were crossing the road from right side to left side; that the petitioner immediately applied brakes and stopped the bus to allow the buffalos to cross the road and while the bus was moving slowly, the care taker of the buffalos came in contact with the bus and when the petitioner was asked to stop the bus, he came to know that a portion of bead of the bus came out and the said person came in contact with the said beading and sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to death on 07.09.2000; that petitioner was suspended on 22.11.2000, an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and submitted a report on 29.05.2001, that the charge was proved and the petitioner was removed from service; that petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide Order dated 14.08.2001, partly allowed the appeal and reinstated the petitioner into service, however, with punishment of reduction of three incremental stages permanently and the entire period of suspension was treated as not on duty. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal case pending against the petitioner vide C.C.No.364 of 2002, under Section 304-A of IPC, before JFCM, Nizamabad, ended in acquittal vide Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005; that since the criminal case was pending and he was facing financial problem, petitioner could not approach this Court immediately challenging the primary and appellate authority orders and filed the present writ petition in the year 2008, after acquittal. He further submitted that sole charge was framed against the petitioner that the petitioner had driven the vehicle to the right side of the road, though there is place on the left side with lack of anticipation even after observing passing of the buffalos on the road from right side to left side at a distance of 200 yards without giving any regard to the road users, which resulted in right rear portion of the bus body hitting a pedestrian, coming in the opposite direction, who sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on 07.09.2000.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that lack of anticipation is not an enumerated misconduct as per service rules/regulations; that on seeing buffalos crossing the road, the petitioner immediately applied brakes and when bus was moving slowly, the deceased came in contact with the bus, which resulted in grievous injuries and subsequent death. He further submitted that there was no fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner and the accident took place only because of projection of beading of the bus, to which the deceased came in contact and that petitioner was not responsible for projection of beading of the bus and thus, removal of petitioner from service on enquiry report and reinstatement of petitioner in the appeal with reduction of three increments permanently and in treating suspension period as not on duty is unsustainable. He further submitted that punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge leveled against him and thus, the same is liable to be set aside and finally, prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied upon the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in W.P.No.17994 of 1989, dated 25.07.1990, wherein, it was held that “The mere fact that a driver is not able to anticipate an animal like a calf crossing its path on a road cannot be said to be either an offence of a misconduct, unless it is shown that the driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving. It is not permissible to impose the punishment for misconduct.”

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents would submit that there was clear negligence on the part of petitioner and having observed movement of buffalos from one side of the road to other side at a distance of 200 yards, the driver should have stopped the bus allowing the buffalos to cross the road and then move. However, the petitioner drove the vehicle to extreme right side and dashed the pedestrian, which resulted in the death of said person, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was no negligence on his part and that the deceased came in contact with the projected beading of the bus is factually incorrect. He also submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing present writ petition and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also and finally, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. In the enquiry report, it is observed that petitioner had seen the buffalos crossing the road at a distance of 200 yards. Therefore, he should have driven the vehicle carefully and should have stopped the vehicle completely till the buffalos crossed road. But, the petitioner driven the bus to the extreme right side of the road and came in contact with the pedestrian, as a result, he fell down and sustained injury to his forehead and cheek and ultimately, he succumbed to injuries. The enquiry officer observed that it is the duty of the driver to drive the vehicle as per the traffic rules, keeping safety in mind and that, he is not supposed to drive the vehicle to extreme right side of the road and thus, the driver failed to take precautionary measures and ultimately, held that charge leveled against the petitioner was proved.

9. The only explanation offered by the petitioner was that on seeing buffalos, he immediately applied brakes and while he was moving slowly, the care taker of the buffalos came in contact with the projected beading of the bus and fell down and ultimately succumbed to injuries.

10. From the material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner has seen crossing of buffalos at a distance of 200 yards and instead of stopping the bus, the petitioner drove the bus to extreme right side of the road, which resulted in hitting the care taker of the buffalos, who sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to injuries, which clearly shows rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle and no explanation has been offered by the petitioner as to why, he drove the bus to the extreme right side of the road, having seen the buffalos crossing the road at a distance of 200 Sq.yrds. In fact, if the petitioner applied brakes and was driving the bus slowly on seeing the buffalos, the deceased would not have sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner cannot simply blame the deceased and projection of beading of the bus, as reasons for accident.

11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner stopped the bus only on hearing hue and cries of the persons present there, which clearly shows that the petitioner was neither vigilant nor cautious while driving the bus and it also suggest that petitioner was rash and negligent. Therefore, in the absence of plausible explanation, the contention of the petitioner that he stopped the vehicle and when he was driving the bus slowly, the deceased came in contact with the bus is untenable.

12. Further, the appellate authority concurred with the observation and conclusion of the enquiry officer, but the appellate authority reinstated the petitioner into service only on humanitarian grounds, however, imposed punishment of reduction of three increments permanently and treated the suspension period as not on duty. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the appellate authority is not disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner.

13. In the Judgment relied upon by the petitioner, it is held that lack of anticipation cannot be said to be either an offence of a misconduct, unless it is shown that the driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving. In the present case, there is clear negligence and rash driving by the petitioner, therefore, the Judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present case.

14. In the light of above, petitioner failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the Order passed by the primary authority as well as appellate authority and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Orders.

15. In the result, writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.