ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioner Corporation filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 22.08.2011 made in I.D. No. 273/2007 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, setting aside the punishment imposed by the Management withholding increments by two stages permanently and treating the suspension period as not on duty and also holding that the workman is entitled to consequential monetary benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner Corporation that the respondent was working as a driver in the establishment of the Corporation and while he was on duty on 08.01.1999 driving the bus bearing No. F 6308 from Bengaluru to Tirupati, near Panam Paku, dashed against a lorry which was parked on the left side of the road, as a result of which one passenger in the bus died on the spot and eight passengers were injured and the bus was extensively damaged. On 20.09.1999, the Corporation issued article of charge and not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent, enquiry was initiated. The respondent participated in the enquiry proceeding. Considering the entire material on record, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges were proved, based on which, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reducing the basic pay withholding increments by two stages permanently and treating the suspension period as not on duty. The appeal preferred against the said order came to be rejected on 28.05.2005. 3. Upon failure of the conciliation proceeding, the Government referred the matter for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was numbered as I.D. No. 273/2007 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The Tribunal observed that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case registered on account of the accident occurred. It further observed that neither the conductor of the bus nor any of the passengers, muchless, the relatives of the deceased or injured passengers are examined. Hence, by the impugned award dated 22.8.2011, the Tribunal set-aside the punishment imposed by the management. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Hence, by the impugned award dated 22.8.2011, the Tribunal set-aside the punishment imposed by the management. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation contended that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal holding that the charges are not proved by placing reliance on the sketch, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. She further contended that the respondent dashed against the lorry parked on the left side of the road, as a result of which a passenger in the bus died on spot and eight were injured. The Tribunal failed to notice that scene of the spot establishes the negligence of the respondent and hence the Tribunal ought to have applied theory of res ipsa loquitor. She further contended that the punishment imposed is only withholding of two increment stages permanently without dismissing the workman is not disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. She further contended that because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent, the Corporation had to pay compensation of (a) Rs. 1,50,000/- in MCOP 670/2002, (b) Rs. 1,92,000/- in MCOP 276/2009, (c) Rs. 75,500/- in MCOP 279/2009, and (d) Rs. 6,000/- in MCOP 282/1999, to the victims of the accident. That apart, the petitioner had to spend towards repair of the bus which was damaged extensively and the Tribunal has not considered all these material facts before passing the impugned award. Therefore, she sought to set-aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal by allowing the present writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel for the respondent workman sought to justify the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and strenuously contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who had parked the vehicle on the road and not on account of the negligence of the respondent/workman. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent has been acquitted of the charges in criminal case under Sections 304(A), 279, 531 of the Indian Penal Code and no eye-witness was examined and statement of the contactor was also not recorded and persons who sustained injuries or the relatives of the victim were not examined. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent has been acquitted of the charges in criminal case under Sections 304(A), 279, 531 of the Indian Penal Code and no eye-witness was examined and statement of the contactor was also not recorded and persons who sustained injuries or the relatives of the victim were not examined. In the absence of any material, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the punishment imposed by the management. Hence, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. In view of the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned award setting aside the punishment imposed by the management withholding increments by two stages permanently and treating the suspension period as not on duty and also holding that the workman is entitled lo consequential monetary benefits, in the facts and circumstances of the present case? 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 9. It is undisputed fact that on 08.01.1999, the respondent was driving the bus belonging to the petitioner-Corporation bearing No. F-6308 from Bengaluru to Tirupati. When the bus reached near Panam Paku it dashed against the lorry parked on the left side of the road as a result of which a passenger in the bus died on the spot and 8 passengers were injured. The spot sketch Ex.M.3 clearly indicates that the respondent dashed against the standing lorry from hind side which indicates that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. Ex.M.6 is the details of expenses incurred by the Corporation, Ex.M.7 is the statement of exgratia amount paid to the injured persons, Ex.M.8 is the damages incurred to the vehicle, Ex.M.9 is the report of the depot manager. By perusing the material documents Exs. M1, M3 to M9 clearly indicates that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent. 10. By perusing the material documents Exs. M1, M3 to M9 clearly indicates that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent. 10. The Tribunal while considering the case, except Ex.M.3, has not considered any of the materials placed before it and proceeded-to set-aside the punishment on the ground that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal proceedings and management has not examined any of the witnesses, including the conductor of the bus and opined that the charges were not proved and therefore punishment imposed was not justified. 11. The Tribunal while considering the entire material on record ignored the specific charge issued to the respondent that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent, accident occurred on 08.01.1999 which resulted in death of a passenger and injuries to 8 passengers and the bus was extensively damaged, the fact remains that the accident has occurred taking away the life of a passenger and injuring eight passengers and the management has paid a sum of Rs. 4,23,500/- towards paying compensation to the victims. The Tribunal failed to notice that mere acquittal in a criminal case based on benefit of doubt is not a ground to set-aside the punishment imposed on the proved charge. In the enquiry, there is a specific finding recorded by the enquiry officer that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent. Taking into consideration the death of a person in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent and injuries caused to eight passengers, the punishment imposed by the management is proportionate to the gravity of charge. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Management. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the point raised in the writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed by the management on the proved charge. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 22.08.2011 made in I.D. No. 273/2007 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, is quashed. The punishment imposed by the management on 23.04.2003 withholding increments by two stages permanently and treating the suspension period as not on duty, is restored. 14. Ordered accordingly.