Judgment :- This writ petition is filed questioning award dated 20.09.2004 in I.D.No.15 of 2001, whereby the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Labour Court'), confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner passed by respondent No.2. Heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner was a Driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'). On the fateful day, he was driving the bus of the Corporation bearing registration No.AEZ 2363 on route No.107/J from Dilsukhnagar to Jubilee bus station, Secunderabad. At a 'T' junction when the petitioner was taking a right turn towards Moosarambagh, a lady carrying a fruit basket on her head was crossing the road and the middle portion of the bus on its right side hit the said lady on account of which she sustained head injuries and died on the spot. This incident was followed by initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner resulting in his removal from service. The petitioner was unsuccessful before the Labour Court in questioning the said order of removal. Having carefully gone through the award and the order removing the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact relating to the fault of the petitioner in causing the accident. But, the only question which requires to be considered is whether the penalty of removal from service is in proportion to the proven misconduct of the petitioner. Ordinarily, the quantum of punishment imposed by the domestic tribunal is not interfered by the Courts. However, the superior Courts evolved the doctrine of proportionality. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court held that where the punishment imposed on a person is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and it is shockingly disproportionate, the Courts exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction in appropriately modifying such punishment. However, the superior Courts evolved the doctrine of proportionality. In a catena of judgments, the Supreme Court held that where the punishment imposed on a person is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and it is shockingly disproportionate, the Courts exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction in appropriately modifying such punishment. (see Om Kumar v. Union of India ( (1995) 6 SCC 749 ), Union of India and another v G.Ganayutham ( (1997) 7 SCC 463 ), Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v A.T. Mane ( (2005) 3 SCC 254 ), V. Ramana v APSRTC ( (2005) 7 SCC 338 ) and Ram Saran v I.G. of Police, CRPF and another ( (2006) 2 SCC 541 .) Having carefully considered the entire facts, I am of the view that removal of the petitioner from service is quite disproportionate to the misconduct. It is no doubt true that lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner has cost a valuable life. But, a careful analysis of the facts reveal that the petitioner suffered a distinct disadvantage in being denied of his request to postpone the domestic enquiry till completion of criminal trial concerning the same set of charges. The purpose of staying departmental enquiry while criminal trial was underway was not to compel the employee to disclose his defence, which may prejudice his interests in the criminal case. (see Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited v. Kushal Bhan ( AIR 1960 SC 806 ), Tata Oil Mills Company Limited v.Workmen ( AIR 1965 SC 155 ), Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari ( AIR 1969 Sc 30 ), Nelson Motis v. Union of India ( (1992) 4 SCC 711 ), State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena ( (1996) 6 SCC 417 ) and Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya ( (1997) 2 SCC 699 ). From the perspective of this settled legal position, the request of the petitioner to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till completion of criminal trial was not unreasonable. Another aspect, which requires to be noticed in the context of deciding on the appropriate punishment, is the past history of the employee. The learned Standing counsel, at the hearing, submitted that the petitioner does not have the past record of rash and negligent driving, though he added that on earlier two occasions he suffered minor penalties of censure and suspension for his unauthorized absence. The learned Standing counsel, at the hearing, submitted that the petitioner does not have the past record of rash and negligent driving, though he added that on earlier two occasions he suffered minor penalties of censure and suspension for his unauthorized absence. The disciplinary authority and the Labour Court failed to consider the above extenuating circumstances in fixing the quantum of punishment. In my considered view, interests of justice would be met if the order of removal is modified into one of reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh driver without any monetary and other service benefits. Accordingly, the order of respondent No.2 and the impugned order of the Labour Court are modified to the above extent. Respondent No.2 shall re-appoint the petitioner as a fresh driver within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to his medical fitness. If the petitioner does not pass the fitness test for the post of driver, respondent No.2 shall appoint him as a sharmik. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.