ORDER : Petitioner is stated to have joined the service of the respondent – Corporation as driver on 01.04.1991. While working under the control of the 4th respondent, he was suspended from service on 30.09.2008 for involving in a fatal accident which resulted in death of a pedestrian. The 4th respondent, without considering the objections /explanation, issued show cause notice of removal holding him guilty of charge by considering the report submitted by the Joint Accident Committee dated 16.09.2008 to which the 4th respondent was also a party along with another Depot Manager and finally, the same Depot Manager removed him from service. The same is against the principles of natural justice as he had already pre-judged the matter and therefore, is hit by the principle of ‘no person should be a judge for his own cause’. In the Appeal preferred, the 3rd respondent vide order dated 16.06.2009 reinstated petitioner, however, reduced his pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years, removal period would be treated as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. The grievance of petitioner is that due to the above punishment, he lost three incremental benefits permanently apart from loss of seniority for one year. Revision preferred before the 2nd respondent was rejected vide order dated 09.07.2010. It is stated that the criminal case booked against him (C.C. No. 11 of 2009) under Section 304-A IPC on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Zaheerabad ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 04.05.2012. In view of pendency of criminal case, he could not approach this Court immediately after rejection of Revision; therefore, he requests to condone the delay, if any in approaching this Court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that the action of the 4th respondent is hit by the principle of prejudice as he was complainant to the charge sheet. According to him, pedestrian turned towards right near the accident place which is the National Highway and came on to the road suddenly without any signal, therefore, for his contribution, punishing his client is against the principles of natural justice. The said facts were not considered by Respondents 2 and 3 objectively. It is submitted that during the removal period, petitioner remained unemployed and his family faced much hardship. 4. The said facts were not considered by Respondents 2 and 3 objectively. It is submitted that during the removal period, petitioner remained unemployed and his family faced much hardship. 4. In the counter, the Corporation brings forth the following facts: Petitioner was initially appointed as casual Driver at PKT depot on 01.04.1991 and as regular Driver on 01.07.1994; during his service, he was imposed with the following punishments: a) An amount of Rs.159/ recovered on 25.03.99 in damage case. b) Suspended on 30.12.99 in accident case. c) Increment reduced by two stages for 2 years with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as "NOT ON DUTY" and recovered Rs.1000/- towards cost of damage on 18.12.00 in accident case. d) Censured on 07.01.03 in vehicle damage case. e) An amount of Rs.500/ recovered on 25.03.99 in tyre damage. f) Increment differed for one year Without Cumulative Effect on 02.09.06 in accident case g) An amount of Rs. 1000/- recovered on 23.05.2008 in damage case. h) Suspended on 30.09.2008 in accident case i) Increment differed for 6 months without cumulative effect on 18.02.2009 in C & T Case involved on 09.08.2008. j) Removed from service on 26.02.2009 in accident case and later reinstated in appeal on 16.02.2010. k) Increment differed for 6 months Without Cumulative Effect on 08.12.2010 in damage case. It is stated that petitioner submitted explanation dated 17.10.2008 to the 4th respondent which was not convincing, hence a detailed enquiry was ordered to be conducted nominating Assistant Manager (T), Rangareddy as Enquiry Officer, who, after conducting a detailed enquiry, submitted report on 22.12.2008, wherein the charge levelled against petitioner was proved and the 4th respondent agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were sent to petitioner on 26.12.2008 and he submitted comments on 11.01.2009. Not convinced by the same, the 4th respondent issued show cause notice for removal dated 12.02.2009 and petitioner submitted explanation dated 23.02.2009 repeating the same points as stated in his explanation to the charge sheet, enquiry statement and reply to comments/objections. After giving careful consideration and other evidences available on record, the 4th respondent passed proceedings dated 26.02.2009 removing him from service. After giving careful consideration and other evidences available on record, the 4th respondent passed proceedings dated 26.02.2009 removing him from service. In the Appeal, the 3rd respondent directed reinstatement into service and was posted at Tandur depot with a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect besides treating the period from the date of removal to date of reporting on reinstatement as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes, vide proceedings, dated 16.06.2009. Review petition filed before the 2nd respondent was rejected vide proceedings dated 09.07.2010. It is stated that petitioner was acquitted in C.C. No.11 of 2009, dated 04.05.2012, but it was on a different set of evidence, hence, it cannot be equated with that of disciplinary proceedings. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri M. Rammohan Reddy submits that petitioner's plea for reinstatement into service was already considered giving him an opportunity to improve his driving skills and serve the Corporation, duly imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect which is very much proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. It is submitted that there is no irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice that warrants interference of this Court under Article 226 of constitution of India. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable for dismissal. 6. The main grievance of petitioner is that principles of natural justice were at stake, for the 4th respondent is a member to the Joint Accident Committee which submitted report dated 16.09.2008; the 4th respondent issued show cause notice of removal holding him guilty of charge by considering the Joint Accident Committee report; he suspended petitioner from service and issued charge sheet vide common proceedings dated 30.09.2008 and finally, passed the order of removal. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the 4th respondent had pre-judged the matter and the same is hit by the principle of ‘no person should be judge for his own cause’. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cantonment Executive Officer v. Vijay D.Wani, (2008) 12 SCC 230 wherein it has been held that ‘….members of the enquiry committee were interested in seeing that their recommendations are accepted; enquiry therefore, held vitiated by bias. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that ‘a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that ‘a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. Once the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty, they cannot sit in the judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them. Objectivity is the hallmark of a judicial system in our country. The very fact that the disciplinary committee which found the respondent guilty participated in decision-making process for finding the respondent guilty and to dismiss him from service is bias which is apparent and real’. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is in full agreement with the contention of learned counsel for petitioner. 7. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court the Circular dated 21.10.1991 to the effect that in all fatal accidents, the Depot Managers of the Depot concerned and the Depot Manager of the nearest depot (of the accident spot) should attend the accident spot and make enquiries about the cause of accident land take a decision about suspension of the driver or otherwise, keeping in view the contributory negligence of the driver /victim as could be seen in the scene of accident. However, it is well-settled that an order, instruction or direction cannot override the provisions of the Act; that would be destructive of all the known principles of law as the same would really amount to giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provisions of law enacted by Parliament. In view of the same, this Court is in full agreement that no person can be a judge of his own cause. 8. However, as regards the charge alleged against petitioner, a perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority discloses that due to negligent driving of the driver only, the fatal accident occurred. The Appellate authority observing that apart from minor punishments, petitioner maintained clean record and this is the first time, he involved in a fatal accident and was removed from service, in order to give him an opportunity to improve his driving skill and serve the Corporation, reinstated him into service with a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect, duly treating the period in which he was out of service as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. This finding, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not entitled to be interfered with. However, since it is held that the 4th respondent has not followed the principle ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’ which means that ‘no one should be a judge in his own cause’, this Court thought it appropriate to modify the punishment imposed by the appellate authority. 9. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed in part, duly modifying the punishment imposed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.06.2009 to that of ‘reduction of pay by two incremental stages without cumulative effect besides treating the removal period as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. No costs. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.