1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to impugned proceedings No.01/02(5)/99 MNCL, dated 21.10.1999 issued by respondent No.1 and the proceedings of the appellate authority vide proceedings No.Steno/19 (31)/05-DVM:ADB, dated 30.09.2005, issued by respondent No.2, and also the proceedings No.PESHI/19(51)/2006-RM: ADB, dated 10.08.2007, issued by respondent No.3 and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Varalaxmi, learned Counsel representing Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that petitioner was temporarily appointed as driver in the respondents-Corporation in the year 1992 and his services were regularized on 01.08.1994; that while he was performing the duty as driver of bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3830, of Mancherial Depot at about 20:30 hrs on route Mancherial to Chennur, on 21.03.1999, he involved in a fatal accident; that when the petitioner stopped the bus towards left side of the road for issuing ticket to one ticketless passenger, a auto driver vide auto No.AP 1 U 362 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the right side of the bus in opposite direction and as a result, 4 passengers were expired and caused grievous injuries to remaining passengers of the auto; that a charge sheet was issued on 18.05.1999 with following charges and he was kept under suspension on the same day:-

               Charges:-

               “For having driven the vehicle with over speed and failed to take precautionary measures and caused fatal accident by bus No.AP 9 Z 3830 with a auto No.AP 1 U 362 on route Mancherial to Chennur on 21.03.1999, which resulted 9 passengers travelling in auto were received grievous injuries, out of 9 passengers 4 were expired which is a serious misconduct in terms of the Regulation No.28(ix)(a) & (b) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963.”

               2. For having driven the vehicle No.AP 9Z 3830 with a lack of anticipation resulting fatal accident and thereby tarnished the image of corporation in the eyes of public, which is a serious misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxxi) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.

4. It is further averred that the enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report on 28.07.1999, holding that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and consequently, the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 21.10.1999, imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of one year with cumulative effect, which shall also have effect on his future increments and also ordered for recovery of Rs.990/- towards cost of damages caused to the bus besides treating the suspension period as not on duty for all purposes. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 02.05.2005 and the said appeal was rejected vide Order dated 30.09.2005, on the ground of limitation, against which, petitioner filed review and the same was also rejected on 10.08.2007, by observing that the disciplinary authority has already taken lenient view and lifted the suspension. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and was in drunken condition. He further submitted that bus was extremely on the left side of the road and half of the bus was on mud road and other half was on black top road, therefore, petitioner was not responsible for the fatal accident and there was neither negligence nor rash driving on the part of petitioner. He further submitted that the enquiry officer without considering all these facts in proper perspective has come to erroneous conclusion that petitioner had driven the bus in rash and negligent manner and caused fatal accident, contrary to the material on record. He further submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the proven charges and on this ground also, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that petitioner had driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, because of which, four passengers who were travelling in the auto were expired and others received grievous injuries, which shows the gravity of the accident. She further submitted that the enquiry officer on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has rightly come to conclusion and the disciplinary authority independently assessed the enquiry report and has rightly imposed the punishment. She further submitted that there was delay and laches on the part of petitioner in challenging the punishment and preferring the appeal after lapse of 4 ½ years and therefore, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal on the ground of appeal being barred by limitation. She further submitted that petitioner approached this Court after lapse of three years from the date of rejection of review, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

7. In the light of submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents, the only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner warrants interference by this Court.

8. It is not in dispute that petitioner involved in a fatal accident on 21.03.1999, wherein, the bus driven by the petitioner and an auto coming in the opposite direction had head on collusion, which resulted in the death of four passengers, who are travelling in the auto besides grievous injuries to other passengers; that two charges were framed against the petitioner and a regular enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record vide his report dated 28.07.1999 held that charges were proved against the petitioner.

9. It is pertinent to note that petitioner has preferred the appeal after long delay of 4 ½ years, therefore, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the rejection of appeal, petitioner filed review before the Regional Manager and the same was rejected vide Order dated 10.08.2007, by observing that the Depot Manager had already taken lenient view. The petitioner preferred the appeal after lapse of 4 ½ years and filed the present writ petition after lapse of three years from the date of rejection of review, however, failed to assign any reason for the delay in filing appeal as well as the present writ petition.

10. Insofar as contention of the petitioner that in view of acquittal in the criminal case, punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has to be set aside is concerned, it is settled principle of law that acquittal in criminal case has no bearing on the departmental enquiry, unless charges, evidence, witnesses and issues in both the proceedings are identical (See: Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2023 INSC 1047)). It is also settled principle of law that standard of proof in criminal case is that of beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in the departmental enquiry, it is preponderance of probabilities, therefore, acquittal in criminal case has no bearing on the departmental enquiry, therefore, punishment imposed by disciplinary authority cannot be set aside on this ground.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner involved in a fatal accident, which resulted in the death of four passengers and grievous injuries to other passengers, who were travelling in auto. The enquiry officer on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence, which were placed before him, has come to conclusion that there was clear negligence on the part of petitioner and he had driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with over speed and thus, caused fatal accident. The disciplinary authority by duly considering the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by two increments for a period of one year and treated the suspension period as not on duty besides ordered for recovery of Rs.990/- towards damages caused to the bus. The review authority has made specific observation that the disciplinary authority has already taken lenient view, while rejecting the review. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

12. In the light of above discussion, the writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed being devoid of any merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.