ORDER : This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Appellate Order No.PA/20(45)/2018-DVM:SDPT, dated 15.02.2019 of the 3rd respondent to the extent of imposing the modified penalty of deferment of annual increments next falls due for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period of removal from service to the date of reporting to duty at the unit posted as NOT ON DUTY for all purposes viz., P.F., Gratuity, Leave, Increment, promotion and Seniority of drivers as confirmed by the Revision Order dated 30.06.2020 is unjust contrary to the T.S.R.T.C. Employees’(CC&A) Regulations, 1967 and Circulars, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the same and direct the respondents to treat the period of removal as on duty for all purposes in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders….” [reproduce verbatim] 2. Heard Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC representing the respondents and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent No.1-Corporation in July, 2007 and his services were regularized on 01.01.2010. On 09.07.2018, the petitioner was allotted duty on 12:00 hours Dubbaka-5 night out services on bus No.TS-15-Z-0160. While the bus was proceeding slowly to Jubilee Bus Station at about 21:20 hoursat Thumkunta near S.B.I, the petitioner, on observing that one scooterist was coming at high speed from Mandaipalli road without observing traffic conditions, applied sudden brakes duly blowing horn and stopped the bus, but the scooterist, unable to control his old scooter, dashed against the side of the bus and fell down. He immediately got up and stated that he has not sustained any injuries. The persons gathered there also stated that there was no fault on the part of the bus driver/petitioner. Though the scooterist did not sustain any bleeding injuries and wanted to go home, the public who gathered there, called 108 Ambulance and forcibly sent him to hospital for checkup, as a matter of precaution. The persons gathered there also stated that there was no fault on the part of the bus driver/petitioner. Though the scooterist did not sustain any bleeding injuries and wanted to go home, the public who gathered there, called 108 Ambulance and forcibly sent him to hospital for checkup, as a matter of precaution. In fact, the petitioner had taken all precautions to avert the accident, i.e., by blowing horn and applied sudden brakes. However, on a complaint lodged by family members of the scooterist, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and the case is now pending before the concerned criminal Court. The respondent No.4 issued charge sheet dated 02.08.2018 alleging that the petitioner had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without taking precautions, due to which, the bus met with an accident with a scooter and the scooterist fell down, sustained injuries on his head, hands and legs and died while undergoing treatment at Gandhi hospital on 11.07.2018. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet on 06.08.2018. However, the respondent No.4, without considering the same, ordered an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, prepared an Accident Report stating that scooterist failed to observe the vehicles on the highway while crossing the road and therefore, he is responsible for the accident. However, the Enquiry Officer, without there being any material to show negligence on the part of the petitioner, simply stated that the petitioner is also responsible for the accident. The Enquiry Officer, basing on the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that at the accident spot, the scooterist tried to cross the highway from the right side, but failed and involved in the subject accident and if the scooterist had taken precautionary measures while crossing the highway, the accident might not have occurred and therefore, the scooterist is also responsible for the accident. The petitioner submitted objections to the enquiry report on 09.11.2018. However, without considering the same, respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner proposing to impose punishment of removal from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, dated 10.12.2018, to the said show-cause notice. However, without considering the petitioner’s reply, the respondent No.4 issued orders, dated 24.12.2018 removing the petitioner from service of the corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 26.12.2018 before respondent No.3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, dated 10.12.2018, to the said show-cause notice. However, without considering the petitioner’s reply, the respondent No.4 issued orders, dated 24.12.2018 removing the petitioner from service of the corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 26.12.2018 before respondent No.3. In the said appeal, the respondent No.3, considering the evidence on record and the service of the petitioner, set aside the removal order and directed his reinstatement into service, but however modified the penalty to that of deferment of his annual increment next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The respondent No.3 also directed that the period of removal of the petitioner from service to the date of his reporting at the unit shall be treated as “not on duty” for all purposes viz., P.F, Gratuity, Leave, Increment, Promotion and Seniority of the driver. Relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and others, (2013)10 SCC 324 , the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the removal order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service, the petitioner has to be restored to his original position, with continuity of service, and all consequential benefits. Further, the order passed by the appellate authority (respondent No.3) to the extent of imposing major punishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the removal period as “not on duty” for all purposes is contrary to regulation 21 of CCCA Rules. Though the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.2 challenging the order passed by respondent No.3, the said revision was rejected by the respondent No.2 by order dated 13.05.2019. Since there is a categorical finding in the enquiry report that the accident took place due to the fault of the scooterist and since the petitioner had taken all precautions to avert the accident, the Corporation ought not have imposed major penalty of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect and treating the removal period as “not on duty” for all purposes. The petitioner has unblemished service record. Major penalty imposed against the petitioner would be prejudicial to the service of the petitioner and he would be put to irreparable loss. The petitioner has unblemished service record. Major penalty imposed against the petitioner would be prejudicial to the service of the petitioner and he would be put to irreparable loss. There is no malice, deliberation, intention and purpose on the part of the petitioner in the occurrence of the subject accident. The disciplinary authority should harmonize various interests of the employee concerned and inflict reasonable punishment, based upon the evidence placed before it. In any event, imposing major penalty of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and treating the removal period as “not on duty” for all purposes is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for. 4. The respondents filed counter. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the subject accident occurred purely due to the fault of the petitioner which resulted in death of a person. Basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was placed under suspension and was issued charge sheet. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the disciplinary authority held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The petitioner failed to anticipate the movements of the scooterist at the accident spot and did not take any precautionary measures to avert the accident. After following due procedure, the petitioner was removed from service. However, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the respondent No.3 ordered re- instatement of the petitioner purely on humanitarian grounds and imposed punishment of deferment of annual grade increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period of removal from service as “not on duty” for all purposes viz., PT, Gratuity, Leave, Increment, Promotion and Seniority of drivers. A valuable life of a person was lost in the subject accident which cannot be compensated in any manner. The petitioner deserves no further leniency. Further, efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, i.e., to approach the Labour Court challenging the order passed in the revision. However, without exhausting the said statutory remedy, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Further, the petitioner failed to produce the criminal case records pertaining to the subject accident. The scope of judicial review is very narrow. Judicial review is not directed against the decision, but against the decision making process. However, without exhausting the said statutory remedy, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Further, the petitioner failed to produce the criminal case records pertaining to the subject accident. The scope of judicial review is very narrow. Judicial review is not directed against the decision, but against the decision making process. In the instant case, there is no patent illegality or irregularity in the decision making process. None of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner merit consideration. The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of this contentions, learned Standing counsel for TSRTC had relied on the following decisions: 1. State of Rajasthan and others vs. Heem Singh, (2021) 12 SCC 569 2. Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another, (2008) 3 SCC 484 3. Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd., and others vs. State of Kerala and others, decided on 7.10.2013 by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9017 of 2013. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and meticulously examined the entire material on record. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as follows: “For having driven the bus No.TS15z 0106 in rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions, your bus met with an accident with a Bajaj Chetak bearing No.AP9DJ 2096 at Thumkunt Village near Mandaipally T-Junction on 09.07.2018 at about 21.00 hours, who was coming from Mandaipally road and to cross the Highway, resulted the rider of the Bajaj Chetak named Manne Parvatalu, R/o Thumkunta Village fell down on the road, due to which he sustained injuries to his head, hands and legs. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, while undergoing treatment he was died on 11.07.2018 in the Gandhi Hospital, which constitutes to misconduct in terms of Regulation No.29(ix)(a) of TSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” A perusal of the above extracted charge reveals that the petitioner had driven the subject bus in a rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions, which resulted in an accident with a Bajaj Chetak scooter, as a result of which, the scooterist fell down on the road, sustained injuries on his head, hands and legs and died while undergoing treatment. The petitioner submitted his explanation categorically denying rashness or negligence in driving the subject bus. The petitioner submitted his explanation categorically denying rashness or negligence in driving the subject bus. He stated that he had taken all precautions to avert the accident, i.e., blowing horn and applying sudden brakes. However, in the enquiry report, dated 22.06.2018, there is a categorical mention that both the petitioner as well as scooterist are responsible for the subject accident. The relevant para reads as under: “It is noticed from the rough sketch, photos of the accident spot, report of Supdt(T)/DBK & AM(T)/SDPT that, the accident spot was at “T” junction on Rajiv Rahadari State highway, the scooterist tried to cross the highway from right side village, but he failed and involved in the accident. If the scooterist has taken precautionary measures while crossing the highway, the accident may not be occurred. At the same time the service driver has failed to anticipate the movements of the scooterist and failed to take precautionary measures to avert the accident. If he had anticipated the movements of the scooterist well in advance and taken precautionary measures the accident may be not be occurred. Therefore, the service driver as well as the motorcyclist both are responsible for the accident occurred.” Thus, it is clear that even as per the enquiry report, the subject accident did not take place purely due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner, but there is contributory negligence. 6. Be that as it is, the respondent No.3, issued orders, dated 15.02.2019, setting aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, but however, imposed the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The question as to what is mean by “reinstatement” fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase’s case (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the said judgment reads as follows: “21. The word “reinstatement” has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II, 3rd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.II, 3rd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition, the word “reinstate” means to reinstall; to reestablish; to place again in a former state, condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word “reinstatement” means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, “reinstatement” means ‘to reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office? To restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.’ 22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” The plain reading of the above extract reveals that the very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee would be put in the same position in which he would have been, but for the illegal action taken by the employer. However, if the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then, it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period, the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer, would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was reinstated into service but however, he was imposed with major punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and also to treat the removal period as “not on duty” for all purposes. 7. It is settled law that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. Gravity of mis-conduct and punishment is a vexed question. To what extent it may be permitted in a particular case to override the requirements of a strictly deterrent theory is a question of time, place and the attending circumstances. 7. It is settled law that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. Gravity of mis-conduct and punishment is a vexed question. To what extent it may be permitted in a particular case to override the requirements of a strictly deterrent theory is a question of time, place and the attending circumstances. Though a liberal view in a matter of grave misconduct by a person sends wrong message, but however, in an act amounting to mis-conduct, one should look for malice, deliberation, intention and purpose. If these elements are patently absent, the mis-conduct may be looked upon liberally. In the instant case, it is borne by record that the petitioner had slowed down the bus, applied sudden brakes and stopped the bus to avert the subject accident. Had the petitioner got any malice, deliberation or intention to cause the subject accident, he would not have blowed horn and stopped the bus by applying sudden brakes. Thus, the petitioner was unintentional in causing the subject accident. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner, though took precautions to avert the accident, but however, due to the contributory negligence on the scooterist, he could not avert the subject accident. Here, it is apt to state that the object and purpose of awarding punishment to an employee is to put him to a dis-advantageous position in his service prospects and to deter him/other employees from re-occurrence of such acts. However, the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the mis-conduct. It should be neither too lenient nor too severe, as severe punishment is likely to cause frustration and eventually prove counter-productive. In deciding the imposition of punishment, the disciplinary authority should take into account modus operandi adopted and the motive operating on the mind of a person and the magnitude and the character of the mis-conduct. If an employee has been serving in an organization for a fairly long period, it would normally indicate that he is a good employee. Therefore, he could be worthy of future trust. In the instant case, it is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner has unblemished service record. 8. If an employee has been serving in an organization for a fairly long period, it would normally indicate that he is a good employee. Therefore, he could be worthy of future trust. In the instant case, it is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner has unblemished service record. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that when an efficacious and alternative remedy is available, a writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner ought to have approached Labour Court for redressal of his grievance and since the petitioner failed to avail the remedy of approaching Labour Court, this writ petition filed by him do not deserve consideration. 9. It is quite prosaic to once again stress what is otherwise a very established legal principle that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though an alternative remedy is one of the factors that should be considered, it cannot be said to be an unsurmountable legal hurdle, which cannot be overcome under any circumstances. In a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts held that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Courts is discretionary. There is also no dispute with regard to the legal principle that availability of alternative remedy provided by the relevant statute is not an absolute bar to entertain a writ petition, rather the High Court has discretion whether to entertain the writ petition or not bearing in mind, the facts of the case brought before the Court. One of the self-imposed restrictions on entertaining a writ petition is that the High Court should not normally entertain the writ petition when an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available, but however, simultaneously, it should also be borne in mind that mere availability of an alternative remedy would not exhaust the party approaching the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction and also it does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court that will render the writ petition not maintainable. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also contended that the petitioner failed to produce criminal case record pertaining to the subject accident. This Court do not see any merit in the said contention inasmuch as pendency of criminal case is not a bar for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee and vice-versa. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also contended that the petitioner failed to produce criminal case record pertaining to the subject accident. This Court do not see any merit in the said contention inasmuch as pendency of criminal case is not a bar for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee and vice-versa. In any event, production of the criminal case records would not have any bearing on this writ petition. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied on Himsingh’s case (supra) in support of his contention that re-appreciation of evidentiary findings in a disciplinary enquiry or substitution of more appropriate view in judicial review is not permissible. While there cannot be any dispute with regard to the said proposition of law, the facts of the cited decision reveals that the delinquent employee therein was a police constable who allegedly committed murder while he was on leave form duty and charge sheet was filed against the accused therein for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC. Hence, the facts of the said decision are completely different from the facts of the case on hand. 12. The facts of the other two decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in Moni Shankar’s case (supra) and Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd., case (supra) are completely different from the facts of the case on hand and as such they are not applicable to the case on hand. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisional authority (respondent No.2) ought not to have rejected the revision application of the petitioner and ought to have modified the punishment of “deferment of his annual increments next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect” to that of “deferment of annual increments next falls for a period of two years without cumulative effect” and the period of removal from service ought to have been treated as “on duty” for all purposes, except for the purpose of leave and increment. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the punishment of deferment of the petitioner’s annual increments next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect to that of deferment of the petitioner annual increments next falls for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the punishment of deferment of the petitioner’s annual increments next falls for a period of two years with cumulative effect to that of deferment of the petitioner annual increments next falls for a period of two years without cumulative effect. It is also directed that the period of removal of the petitioner from service to the date of his reporting to duty at the unit posted shall be treated as “on duty” for all purposes, except for the purpose of leave and increment. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.