Judgment This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Approval Petition No.171 of 2003, dated 04.09.2006 and consequently, to grant approval to the dismissal order passed by him. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was working as Driver in the petitioner Transport Corporation. According to the petitioner, due to careless and negligent driving of the bus, the first respondent killed three persons, who were travelled in a TVS 50 moped, at 9.42 p.m. on 25.08.2002. Had he reduced the speed of the bus, the life of three persons could have been saved. The charge memo was issued to the first respondent and he submitted his explanation on 10.09.2002, denying the charge of negligence and careless driving of the bus and pleaded that they were levelled out of enmity and not because of the accident as alleged in the charge memo. Not being satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The first respondent participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer gave a report that the charges levelled against the first respondent was proved. The second show cause notice, dated 29.11.2002 was served on the first respondent and he sent a reply, dated 03.01.2003 for the same. 3. After considering all the materials and evidence on record and also the past conduct of the first respondent, the petitioner decided to impose major punishment of dismissal from service of the first respondent. The order of dismissal, dated 09.06.2003 was passed and approval petition was filed before the second respondent seeking an order approving the order of dismissal. The second respondent, by the impugned order, dated 04.09.2006, rejected to grant approval for the order of dismissal. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The petitioner filed additional typed set of papers consisting of enquiry proceedings and findings of the enquiry officer. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the charge against the first respondent that he dashed the bus against the TVS 50 moped and due to the said accident, two persons, who were travelled in the two wheeler died on the spot and another person died in the Hospital at Paramakudi. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the charge against the first respondent that he dashed the bus against the TVS 50 moped and due to the said accident, two persons, who were travelled in the two wheeler died on the spot and another person died in the Hospital at Paramakudi. The first respondent was driving the vehicle negligently at a high speed and he committed the mistake as per the Standing Order. The second respondent also took note of the fact that Ex.A2, summary of incident was given. In the said summary, three persons were travelling in the TVS 50 moped in the same direction, as the bus was proceeding and suddenly felled down on the left hand side of back wheel of the bus. In the domestic enquiry, the management witness, Thiru.P.Rajaram Pandian, Deputy Manager, has stated that on inspection of the bus, bloodstains were found in the chasis of left side back wheel of the bus and also left hand side of the road. In spite of the said summary and the incident contained in Ex.A2 and the evidence of management witness, the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges against the first respondent that he dashed against the TVS 50 moped had been proved. 6. The first respondent has properly considered the evidence in the enquiry and held that no evidence had been recorded in the enquiry into the charges to establish that the vehicle driven by the first respondent dashed against the TVS 50 moped. The second respondent has held that the Enquiry Officer has given the report that the charges are proved against the first respondent without any basis. The second respondent also contended that as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalla Ram Vs. D.C.M. Chemical Works [ AIR 1978 SC 1004 ], he applied the principles in a proper perspective and rejected the approval petition filed by the petitioner. There is no error in the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for approval of the order of dismissal. There is no reason warranting interference by this Court. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.