JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks for a Writ of certiorari to set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District-1st respondent (the Tribunal, for short) in I.D.No.106 of 2004 dated 15-12-2005 and to order reinstatement of the petitioner together with continuity of service and wages. 2. On 25-01-2000, the petitioner was appointed as a driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation, for short). On 06-02-2000, an accident occurred while the petitioner was driving the bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 6632. Two persons approaching on the opposite direction of the bus in a Hero Honda Motorcycle sustained injuries in the said accident and died. The accident was registered as Crime No.13 of 2000, Rayadurgam Police Station, Hyderabad, under Section 304-A, IPC. 3. A Joint Accident Committee was constituted by the Corporation. The Committee examined the case of the petitioner and held that he was responsible for the accident. A report was filed on 17-02-2000 by the Joint Accident Committee. The Depot Manager, Hyderabad Central University (HCU, for short) Depot signed the Joint Accident Committee Report along with the Depot Manager, Mehdipatnam Depot. On the basis of the report, the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised I.D.No.106 of 2004. By orders dated 15-12-2005, a nil award was passed by the Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Sri G. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised a two-fold contention. His first contention is that the Disciplinary Authority himself acted as a Member of the Joint Accident Committee and that the very report, therefore, cannot be accepted. In Md. Hasson v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Hyd. ( 2003(3) ALD 545 ), a driver of the APSRTC allegedly caused accident resulting in the death of a pedestrian. The driver denied the same. An enquiry was ordered. A Member of the Accident Enquiry Committee, which gave an ex parte report against the driver, acted as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the driver guilty solely on the basis of the report of the Accident Enquiry Committee. The High Court held that the action of removal of the driver on the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, who was a Member of the Accident Enquiry Committee, violates the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer found the driver guilty solely on the basis of the report of the Accident Enquiry Committee. The High Court held that the action of removal of the driver on the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, who was a Member of the Accident Enquiry Committee, violates the principles of natural justice. His contention is that the petitioner cannot be penalized by a person participating in the Joint Accident Committee. Admittedly, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, HCU Depot is the Disciplinary Authority. He is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The Joint Accident Committee Report discloses that the Depot Manager, HCU Depot acted as one of the Members of the Committee. This certainly would be a violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in fact, no case was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the First Information Report in Crime No.13 of 2000 and that the case was closed at the crime stage itself. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal considered that fair opportunity was accorded to the petitioner in the process of the domestic enquiry. 6. The facts leading to the accident may be stated at this stage. It is the case of the Corporation that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Hero Honda Motorcycle resulting in the death of two persons travelling on the motorcycle. The petitioner offered detailed explanation, which was marked as Ex.M-5, before the 1st respondent. The petitioner stated that while he was driving the bus, a lorry was found stationed at Durga Petrol Bunk. While the bus scaled the stationed lorry, the Hero Honda Motorcycle approached in the opposite direction and dashed the bus. It is the case of the petitioner thus that the rider of the motorcycle drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The enquiry report does not show reasons for concluding that it was proved that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Even the Tribunal did not consider that whether cogent evidence was let in to prove the accident. The Tribunal went by the assumption that the accident was proved and was proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. 7. Even the Tribunal did not consider that whether cogent evidence was let in to prove the accident. The Tribunal went by the assumption that the accident was proved and was proved “beyond reasonable doubt”. 7. I am not able to agree with this finding of the enquiry report and the award. As against the evidence of the petitioner denying negligence on his part, there is no proper evidence. Consequently, the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was guilty cannot be accepted. More important when the Disciplinary Authority participated in the Joint Accident Committee, any order from such a Disciplinary Authority shall be considered to be a violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of removal of the petitioner consequently is liable to be set aside. 8. Smt. D. Radhika, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation, submitted that the petitioner is a daily wager and that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner 3 years after he was removed from service. She also contended that the preliminary enquiry and the enquiry report show that the case of the petitioner is established, so much so, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief of reinstatement. For the reasons already set out, I am not able to agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation that the petitioner is established to be guilty of rash and negligent conduct. Consequently, the enquiry report and the award are liable to be set aside. 9. However, the petitioner is a daily wage earner. Added to it, the petitioner approached the Tribunal 3 years after his termination from service. I therefore consider it appropriate to order reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service without back wages and attendant benefits and shall be considered as a fresh candidate. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.