Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 154 (KAR)

N. Madhava Rao v. Managing Director, BTS Division

2005-02-24

R.GURURAJAN

body2005
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—This petition is filed by one Madhav Rao challenging the order dated 7-8-1992, Annexure-H, bearing No. KST.BTS.TR.ACDT.AS. 102.91.1405. 2. Petitioner is working as a driver. He has got more than 15 years of experience. He never committed any accidents in his service career. On 14-3-1991 after completion of his duty he left his vehicle in the depot. His reliever did not turn up for duty. He was asked to perform the duty of his reliever also. Petitioner under these circumstances took the vehicle from the docking section. He took the vehicle in the reverse direction and in the process an accident occurred resulting in the death of his colleague. According to the petitioner he is not responsible either for causing the accident or for the consequences. Thereafter, article of charge was issued to the petitioner. He filed his reply. Thereafter an enquiry was held against him. Ultimately he was issued with an order ordering reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 1,100/- to Rs. 970/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal unsuccessfully. 3. Petitioner also says that criminal case was initiated against the petitioner which resulted in his acquittal in terms of the order of the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 10257 of 1997, dated 30th day of September, 1996. Petitioner with these facts is before me challenging the impugned order on various grounds. 4. Respondents entered appearance. They have filed statement of objections. In the statement of objections, they support the impugned order. They say that the accident has resulted in loss of life and in the given circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned order requires my interference in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondents further say that the petitioner's remedy is in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 6. Sri Katwa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/workman invites my attention to the a material facts and material grounds to say that his client is innocent in the matter and he cannot be held responsible for the accident. He has taken the maximum care and even then the accident has occurred in the matter. At any rate he says that he cannot be issued with the impugned order of punishment. He wants an interference. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents-management supports the order. 8. He has taken the maximum care and even then the accident has occurred in the matter. At any rate he says that he cannot be issued with the impugned order of punishment. He wants an interference. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents-management supports the order. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel, I have carefully perused the material placed on record. 9. It is an admitted fact that the accident did occur on 14-3-1991 resulting in the death of a co-employee. It is also an admitted fact that the death was on account of reversion of the vehicle by the petitioner. An article of charge has been issued in terms of Annexure-A. In Annexure-A it is mentioned that he was responsible for the accident on account of rash and negligent driving. He submitted a reply and thereafter an enquiry was held and findings obtained. Petitioner asserts that he submitted his written statement but despite the same, Annexure-H has been issued. 10. However, it is seen that the petitioner seems to have submitted a written statement but in the order it is said that no written brief as such was filed. It is not clear as to whether Annexure-G is received or not. Even otherwise, the facts of the case do not warrant any interference as I mentioned earlier, in the light of the death of co-employee on account of the accident in the given circumstances. 11. It is seen from the admitted facts itself that a human life is lost on account of an act attributable to the petitioner. The said incident cannot be over simplified as argued by the petitioner in the matter. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances including death of a co-employee, I deem it proper not to interfere, particularly in the light of a minor punishment of reduction of his wages from Rs. 1,100/- to Rs. 970/-. The facts of the case do not warrant any interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I refuse to exercise my discretion in a matter like this. In the circumstances, I do not find justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned orders confirmed in appeal. 12. Before concluding, I deem it proper to observe that KSRTC is meant for catering public transport facilities to the needy public in terms of its statutory obligations. I refuse to exercise my discretion in a matter like this. In the circumstances, I do not find justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned orders confirmed in appeal. 12. Before concluding, I deem it proper to observe that KSRTC is meant for catering public transport facilities to the needy public in terms of its statutory obligations. In a congested city like Bangalore, BTS buses play a vital role in providing transport facilities to the general public. This Court can take judicial notice of a large number of accidents that occur day in and day out in a city like Bangalore. In the circumstances, I deem it proper to observe that KSRTC must take appropriate steps to provide a deterring punishment for its erring employees in appropriate cases in the interest of the invisible public suffering accidents in Bangalore. I also deem it proper to observe that criminal proceedings have ended in acquittal in terms of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30th September, 1996. The learned Judge has acquitted the petitioner on the ground that during the course of cross-examination, all the witnesses have stated that they had not seen the accident. I deem it proper again to observe that KSRTC shall take proper steps and proper remedial action by way of providing better material evidence before Criminal Court by assisting the police in the interest of maintaining road discipline in the larger interest of the travelling public of the State. 13. In the result, petition stands dismissed. No costs. 14. Counsel for the respondent is directed to send a copy of the order to the Managing Director of KSRTC, for his information and for needful action in future cases.