JUDGMENT By means of .this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 16-6-1995 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Dehradun, whereby it has been held that the removal from service of workman Mansa Ram Nainwal driver from 31-3-1993 by the employers was not illegal and improper and that the workman is not entitled to any relief. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the U.P State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) on 1-111988 and during the relevant period, he was driver on Bus No. UGA-9338. On the fateful day, i.e. 10-10-1990 the petitioner was on duty and he took the Bus in question on Oehradun-Mussoorie road. When the bus reached near village Bhatta, another bus of Corporation, namely bus No. UGA-9479 was coming down the hill from opposite direction towards Oehradun at a high speed and bus of the petitioner was climbing the hill road towards Mussoorie. As soon as the said bus UGA-9338 reached near Magic Pan Restaurant, then in order to save the bus coming downwards, the driver lost control over the bus and it rolled down in a gorge about 500 Mt. deep with the result, as many as 12 passengers including the conductor Arjun Singh lost their lives in the said accident and 25 passengers suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner also sustained injuries in the said accident. 3. The petitioner workman was placed under suspension under the orders of the Assistant Regional Manager (Hill) Dehradun dated 16-10-1990 and departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the driver and he was charge sheeted vide letter dated 25-1-1991. The charges levelled against the driver included that of rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. A reply was filed by the petitioner on 15-21991 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the Corporation and to lead his defence. The departmental inquiry was conducted by Sri H.S. Saxena, I.F.S. (Retired). In the inquiry report, charges were not found proved. The punishing authority did not agree with the enquiry report and issued a show cause notice against the petitioner dated 18-12-1991. The petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the Corporation and to lead his defence. The departmental inquiry was conducted by Sri H.S. Saxena, I.F.S. (Retired). In the inquiry report, charges were not found proved. The punishing authority did not agree with the enquiry report and issued a show cause notice against the petitioner dated 18-12-1991. In that show cause notice, the Regional Manager/Punishing Authority has concluded that there was no defect in the bus. prior to the accident and the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner resulting to death of 12 persons and heavy financial loss was caused to the Corporation. By the show cause-notice, the petitioner was required to submit his reply within 15 days as to why he be not removed from the service. The petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause notice, which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. In his reply, the petitioner had submitted that there was no evidence on the point of rash and negligent driving and the attribution of this charge is result of personal opinion of the punishing authority. In the last it was contended that the punishment proposed is ma10r penalty and harsh and severe in nature. 4. The punishing authority/Regional Manager ultimately re-assessed the enquiry report and ultimately passed the order of removal from service of the driver Mansa Ram Nainwal as mentioned in the order dated 31-3-1993. 5. It may also be noted that a magisterial inquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate Dehradun to be conducted by S.D.M. Mussoorie regarding the motor accident in question, which took place on 10-10-1990. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mussoorie conducted the said magisterial inquiry and submitted his enquiry report dated 31-12-1990. 6. Aggrieved, the workman-petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Regional Chief Manager (West' U.P.S.R.T.C. Meerut, who did not find favour with the appellant-petitioner holding that there is no force in the appeal and ultimately dismissed appeal. Thereafter, the petition man raised an industrial Section 4-K of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Presiding Officer Labour Court for adjudication of the question whether the removal from service of the workman Mansa Ram Nainwal by the employers from 31-3-1993 is unjustified or illegal? If so to which benefit the applicant / workman is entitled and to what extent. 7. The dispute was ultimately referred to the Presiding Officer Labour Court for adjudication of the question whether the removal from service of the workman Mansa Ram Nainwal by the employers from 31-3-1993 is unjustified or illegal? If so to which benefit the applicant / workman is entitled and to what extent. 7. The employer-Corporation has contended that on 10-10-1990 the bus No. UGA-9338 met with an accident on Dehradun-Mussoorie motor road near village Bhatta due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver workman with the result 12 persons lost their lives and many others suffered injuries and the employer suffered loss of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It was also contended that the departmental inquiry was conducted against the workman and thereafter show cause notice was given to the driver-workman and after considering the explanation, the workman was removed from service. 8. The workman-petitioner in his written statement pleaded that he was employed with the Corporation from 1-11-1988. He also asserted that he was charge-sheeted and in the enquiry, the department failed to produce documentary evidence and ultimately, the workman/ petitioner was exonerated from the charges by the Enquiry Officer. Still he has been awarded extreme penalty of removal from service. According to the workman/petitioner, the accident was caused due to vis-major and due to mechanical defect. 9. Learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties has held that the motor accident took place due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver. It was also concluded that there was defect in the steering of the bus which was in the knowledge of the driver since 9-10-1990, but he took the bus with defective steering on the date of accident. The learned Labour Court also observed that the Enquiry Officer had drawn the inference on wrong appraisal of evidence and it has been held that the accident was not a result of act of God, therefore, the dispute referred to the labour court was answered in favour of the Corporation against the workman, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 10. Earlier, this Court heard the writ petition and vide order dated 9-8-2005, the learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition partly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. 10. Earlier, this Court heard the writ petition and vide order dated 9-8-2005, the learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition partly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another" [(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 679] and passed the order to the effect that "the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. The benefit of continuity of service shall be given but he shall not be paid any back wages." 11. Aggrieved by the said order, the Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation filed Special Leave Petition No. 162 of 2006 before the Apex Court, which was allowed and the Civil Appeal No. 3179 of 2006 was heard and ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 28-7-2006 thereby the matter was remanded to this Court for fresh consideration with the observation that the Writ Petition be disposed of within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order. 12. After remand of the matter to this Court, the writ petition was first listed for hearing on 16-10-2006 when the case was sought to be adjourned by learned counsel for both the parties fixing the week 13-11 -2006. On 13-112006 and 27-11-2006 at the request made by the respondents-Corporation, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter the Court remained' closed during Winter Vacations and after re-opening of the Court, the matter was listed on 12-32007 and both the parties sought adjournment. It was only on 20-3-2007 that the arguments were heard in the writ petition. 13. The petitioner has assailed the' impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court mainly on the ground that the Departmental Enquiry as well as the Enquiry conducted by Magistrate fully proved that the accident was an act of God and there was no whisper of negligence on the part of the workman-petitioner. It has further been contended that the removal from service by the respondent no.2 is against the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the petitioner was not at all considered. 14. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record including the judgment and order dated 28-7-2006 passed by the Apex Court. 15. 14. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record including the judgment and order dated 28-7-2006 passed by the Apex Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has hammered the impugned award contending that the petitioner Mansaram had already been prosecuted for the charge of rash and negligent driving in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 1161 of 1992, State Vs. Mansa Ram and others under Sections 279/337/ 338/ 427 and 304 A I.P.C. and the trial against the petitioner had ended in acquittal vide judgment and order dated 11-9-1997. In the criminal trial, one of the prosecution witnesses supported the charges levelled against the petitioner. Hence, for the some set of charges, he could not have been charged by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the plea of rash and negligent driving by the petitioner is against the own stand of the UPSRTC as the Corporation in their written statement filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had asserted that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving rather it was due to technical fault in the steering of the bus, therefore, it was not open to the Corporation to have charged the petitioner on the ground of negligence which they had denied before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Inquiry Officer, who was entrusted to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner did find the petitioner not guilty of charges and he submitted his report thereby exonerating the petitioner from the charges, but surprisingly the Punishing Authority by disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer recorded its own finding of the guilt on the basis of the technical inquiry report which was not placed and proved before the inquiry officer wherein it was concluded that the vehicle was in road-worthy condition without any defect before the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the punishing authority had given notice to the petitioner against the proposed punishment of removal from service and thus the reasonable opportunist of defence had been• taken away by the alleged show cause notice given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the punishing authority had given notice to the petitioner against the proposed punishment of removal from service and thus the reasonable opportunist of defence had been• taken away by the alleged show cause notice given to the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice had lost its sanctity and the same could not have been acted upon because the Punishing Authority had held the petitioner responsible for the accident and the damage caused to the Corporation. 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that no prejudice was caused to the rights of the delinquent official because he had been given opportunity of show cause against the proposed punishment. 17. It is not disputed that a motor accident took place involving Corporation Bus No. UGA-9338 on Dehradun Mussoorie motor road near village Bhatta, which was being driven by the petitioner. Admittedly, at the relevant time, this bus was climbing towards the hill while another bus of the Corporation U.GA-9479 was coming down the hill. This bus met with an accident with the result as many as 12 persons lost their lives, several others got injured and the bus was completely damaged. It is also not disputed that a Magisterial Enquiry was ordered in the matter and Sub Divisional Magistrate Mussoorie conducted the inquiry and submitted the same to the District Magistrate, copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. It is also not disputed that the petitioner driver was prosecuted by the police in for criminal charges including that of rash and negligent driving before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dehradun and the trial ended in acquittal. It is also not disputed that a domestic disciplinary inquiry was held against the driver Mansaram Nainwal of the bus No. UGA9338 and the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order dated 16-10-1990 passed by the Regional Manager (Hill) Dehradun of the Corporation and consequently he was charge-sheeted. Sri H.S. Saxena, Retd. I.F.S. was entrusted the departmental inquiry and the Enquiry Officer found that charges were not proved against the driver or the bus. Sri H.S. Saxena, Retd. I.F.S. was entrusted the departmental inquiry and the Enquiry Officer found that charges were not proved against the driver or the bus. The Punishing Authority, i.e. Regional Manager of the Corporation, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and recorded his own findings holding that there was no defect in the bus at the time of accident and that the petitioner was guilty rash and negligent driving thereby solely responsible for the accident and loss to the Corporation. The following is the concluding extract of the order dated 18-12-1991 passed by the Regional Manager in the show cause notice : "UPARYUKT TATHYON KE PARIPEKSHY MEN SPAST HAI KI WAHAN MEN DURGHATANA SE PURV KOI KHARABI NAHIN THI TATHA DURGHATANA APKE DWARA WAHAN KO TEEVRA GATI EVAM ASAWDHANI SE SANCHALIT KARNE KE KARAN HI GHATIT HUI JISKE FALSWAROOP HUI ARTHIK EVAM MANVIY HANI KE LIYE AAP PURNTAYA DOSHI HAIN. ATEV AAPKO NIRDESH DIYE JATE HAIN KI ES NOTICE KI PRAPTI KE 15 DIN KE ANDAR ADHOHASTAKSHARI KO KAARAN BATAYEN KI KYON NA ULLIKHIT AVCHAR KE LIYE AAPKE NILAMBAN KAL KE AWSHESH VETAN KO APHRIT KARTE HUYE EVAM APKI PRATIBHUTI KI DHANRASHI EVAM ANYA DEY, YADI KOI HON, KO NIGAM KO HUI HANI MEN SAMAYO JIT KARTE HUYE AAPKO SEWA SE PRITHAK KAR DIYA JAYE?" 18. The above extract of the show cause notice issued by the Punishing Authority makes it clear that for the first time, the petitioner was held guilty finally by this show cause notice and the delinquent driver was asked to submit his reply on the point of proposed punishment of removal from service. 19. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 23-12-1991 as well as supplementary reply vide Annexure No.3. It is admitted that the petitioner Mansaram was removed from service of the Corporation by order dated 31-3-1991 passed by the Punishing Authority, vide Annexure No.4. From a bare perusal of the order of removal from service passed by the Regional Manager / Punishing Authority it is obvious that in this order he had in fact recorded a finding of guilt of his own and thereafter he passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. From a bare perusal of the order of removal from service passed by the Regional Manager / Punishing Authority it is obvious that in this order he had in fact recorded a finding of guilt of his own and thereafter he passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Since the punishing authority had already issued a show cause notice against the petitioner regarding the proposed punishment as referred to above, the finding of guilt recorded again in this order loses its sanctity especially because it cannot be deemed that by the show cause notice against the proposed punishment of removal from service, any opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner. The only thing which could be inferred from the show cause notice discussed above is that the punishing authority had set up the frame of the pro" posed punishment of removal of the petitioner from service, therefore, any subsequent finding recorded by the authority concerned is nothing but a hearing on the point of punishment. The Apex Court in the case of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman and MD, ITI Ltd. and another [2007 (112) FLR 1077 (Supreme Court)], in paragraph 12 has held that We have already quoted the extracts from the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. It is clear that no notice at all was given before the disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusions differing with the finding of fact of the inquiry officer. The notice to show cause was merely a show-cause against the proposed punishment. In view of the long line of authorities, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside." In that case, the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behan Misra [(1998) 7 S.C.C. Page '84] was followed, wherein the Apex Court has held that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The case of Yoginath D. Bagde V State of Maharashtra [AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 3734] was also followed wherein it was observed that "but the requirement of hearing in consonance with the principles of natural justice even at that stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it has to be held that before the disciplinary authority, finally disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it would given an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view. " 20. In the circumstances of the case, having gone through the material on record, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and the manner in which the show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment of removal from service was issued to the petitioner, it is a fit case in which the matter may be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to hear the petitioner and then to decide the matter in accordance with law. I am fortified in my view by the Apex Court judgment dated 9-3-2007 in the case of Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Ramesh Kumar. The Apex Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2007 Uttaranchal Transport Corporn. & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar has observed that "the Enquiry Officer found that the charge were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority which recommended dismissal did not grant hearing to the respondent workman. The matter was carried in appeal to the Chairperson. The Chairperson heard the respondent workman. However as stated above, the High Court has set aside the order of termination/removal only on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority had not given a hearing to the workman particularly when it had disagreed with the views / recommendations of the Enquiry Officer." It was held that "in our view, for the foretasted defect, which was curable, the High Court should not have ordered reinstatement to the workman. In our view, ends of justice would have been sub-served if the matter would have been remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to hear the workman and pass appropriate order in accordance with law." It is pertinent to mention here that the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court are almost identical to the facts of the case at hand and the same is squarely covered by the verdict in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra). 21. The ultimate result of entire narration of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand is that the delinquent workman-petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Disciplinary Authority and in the domestic enquiry, he was exonerated from the charges of negligent driving by the Enquiry Officer, but the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and while recording his own finding on the guilt of the employee petitioner, instead of giving opportunity to defence to the delinquent workman, served upon him show cause notice against the proposed punishment of removal from service. On the basis of his findings, the Disciplinary Authority simultaneously made up his mind for the proposed extreme penalty of removal from service. Thus, the petitioner was not given notice to substantiate his contention of being not guilty to the charges and to show that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer did not suffer from any error and notice was given merely to show cause against the proposed punishment, therefore, the requirement of principles of natural justice was lacking, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lau Nigam (supra), the order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 31-3-1993 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is not sustainable and this important aspect was lost sight of by the appellate authority-respondent no.2 as well as by the learned Labour Court-respondent no.1, therefore, all the impugned orders under challenge are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is liable to be allowed. 22. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court in Industrial Dispute Case No. 10 of 1994 and the orders dated 307 -1993 and 31-3-1993 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager of the Corporation-respondent no.3. 2 and 3 respectively are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager of the Corporation-respondent no.3. The proceeding may be recommended from the stage of issuance of a fresh show cause notice by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner-workman indicating his tentative disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority will hear the delinquent workman/petitioner and decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously as far as possible. It is further directed that the punishing authority shall also pass an order in respect of the wage/subsistence allowance, as the case may be, to be payable to the delinquent petitioner between the period 31-3-1993, i.e. date of his removal from service, to the date of the decision afresh in accordance with law, in compliance of above direction.