ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “… to issue, a Writ Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature Writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to impugned award dt.9-2-2015 in ID No.20/2012 on the file of the 2 nd respondent communicated Vide G.O. Rt. No.117 dt.17.3.2015 in so far as not granting continuity service of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to award the petitioner's continuity of service with all consequential benefits, by holding the action of the respondents in not awarding continuity of service of the petitioner and further treating him as afresh driver as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14,16 of the Constitution of India and pass...” 2. Heard Sri CH. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: That the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage driver in APSRTC in the year 1991, and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1995. Ever since his date of appointment, he is discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors, maintaining an unblemished record and achieving the targets fixed by the Corporation. That being so, on 18.06.2007, the petitioner was instructed to operate bus No.AP-11Z-1465 on the route Karimnagar – Nizamabad at 05:30 Day Out Service. Unfortunately, due to break failure, he could not stop the bus and ran on to the Nizamabad Platform No.21. He took all the precautions to avert the accident and there was no fault on his part. But the 3 rd respondent had issued Proceedings dated 28.06.2007 placing the petitioner under suspension and issued a charge memo as follows: 1. For having to take utmost care to avert any kind of accident while entering on Platform No.21 of Nizamabad point of Karimnagar Bus Station on 18.06.2007 while performing duty of 5.30 hours Karimnagar to Nizamabad, while coming from Karimnagar - II Depot to platform No.21. 2. For having failed to apply brakes of the bus to stop the bus at Nizamabad Plat Form No.21 of Karimnagar bus station on 18.6.2007 at about 6.00 hours. 2. For having failed to apply brakes of the bus to stop the bus at Nizamabad Plat Form No.21 of Karimnagar bus station on 18.6.2007 at about 6.00 hours. There by the bus driven by you at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, ploughed into Karimnagar Bus Station hitting to platform wall, pillars up to ordinary enquiry room thereby bus damaged, resulted to instantaneous death of woman, intending to board your bus and other four persons sustained injuries. 4. The respondents did not supply the relevant copies of documents like accident report, rough sketch and eyewitness statements etc., along with the chargesheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.07.2007 denying the two charges. Thereafter, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct proper enquiry and not given full pledged opportunity during the course of enquiry and he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner had specifically stated that on the date of the accident he had applied the brakes but due to heavy rain throughout the night, radial tyres, cement wet road, water stagnation before platform, brakes were rolled and radial tyres slipped on applying the brakes but there was no wanton mistake on petitioner’s side. 5. Apart from that the platform of Nizamabad sector was very low when compared to other platforms and easy to claim the tyres due to slipping of radial tyres and the petitioner lifted the hand brake for effective application, meanwhile the bus climbed the platform and stopped. The speed of the bus was very slow, as the petitioner left from depot and travelled 50 Yards distance and taken the left tunnel and after left tunnel only travelled 50 Yards distance and total 100 Yard travel. In this short distance, there is one left corner turn; therefore the question of speed of the bus does not arise. That the bus was gone up to enquiry room and the distance from platform to enquiry room is only 10-0 to 12-0 feet, which is very near. Thus, any prudent driver will not cause such a drastic accident wantonly and will not drive the bus so rashly and negligently, when the bus is to be parked on the platform and other buses also parked on the platform. Thus, any prudent driver will not cause such a drastic accident wantonly and will not drive the bus so rashly and negligently, when the bus is to be parked on the platform and other buses also parked on the platform. Therefore, it is absolutely not correct to state that the petitioner had driven the bus with rash and negligent manner and with high speed and caused the accident without taking precautions to avert the accident. 6. However, the Enquiry Officer without considering the petitioner’s explanations during the course of domestic enquiry, and relied in toto on the preliminary enquiry report and held that both the charges which are one and the same are held proved. Apart from that, the Enquiry Officer has not given opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses during the course of enquiry and the enquiry officer failed to consider that the bus was not inspected by the MVI on the spot. The Enquiry Officer had relied upon the statement of Asst. Engineer (Mechanical), Karimnagar-II Depot who is not a competent person as he is the in-charge of vehicles. He will give the vehicles to the drivers from his Depot and the accidental bus belongs to his Depot and under his control, therefore, he would not enlighten the proper defects of the vehicle. If he discloses any vehicle defect, he would be plunged into disciplinary action by the Management. Therefore, relying on the statement of a management witness i.e. Asst. Engineer (Mechanical) who is interested witness, held that the charges were proved against the petitioner and the same is highly illegal and opposed to all principles of equity, justice and fair play. 7. The 1st respondent without considering the true facts, cogent evidence on record, satisfactory explanations submitted by the petitioner from time to time, removed the petitioner from service through Order, dated 11.01.2008 illegally. Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.4, which was mechanically rejected on 12.03.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition, which was partly allowed by respondent No.5 – the Regional Manager vide proceedings dated 04.09.2008 reinstated him as a fresh driver. 8. As per the re-instatement orders, dated 04.09.2008, the petitioner joined duty. The petitioner had rendered more than 15 years unblemished record of service, but the respondents did not consider for continuity of service. 8. As per the re-instatement orders, dated 04.09.2008, the petitioner joined duty. The petitioner had rendered more than 15 years unblemished record of service, but the respondents did not consider for continuity of service. Since the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and biased, the petitioner filed I.D.No.20/2012 before the 2 nd respondent and the same was dismissed by impugned Award, dated 09.02.2015, which was communicated by G.O.Rt.No.117, dated 17.03.2015. The Labour court i.e. the 2nd respondent did not appreciate various grounds taken by the petitioner. Subsequent to filing of I.D.No.20/2012, the petitioner had filed I.A. on 24.11.2014 by filing 9 documents including the judgment of the Criminal Court, as well as appreciation letters issued by the respondents. In the claim statement it is mentioned that the accident occurred due to brake failure due to heavy rain and storage of water in the bus stand area. 9. The petitioner also stated that on the very same charge in the criminal case Vide C.C.No.271 of 2009, he was honourably acquitted by judgment, dated 21.12.2011 by the trial Court. When the charge is same in the departmental enquiry as well as in the criminal case, and since the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled for reinstatement with all benefits as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court. However without considering the same, the 2nd respondent has dismissed the I.D.No.20/2012. 10. Though the 2nd respondent in the impugned Award categorically stated that in CC No.271 of 2009 the investigating officer was examined and there is no evidence with regard to allegation that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and on that ground, the petitioner was acquitted. However, the same was not considered while passing the orders. The 2nd respondent did not consider that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and biased as the Enquiry Officer did not conduct proper enquiry as stated supra. 11. Though the petitioner specially stated in the review petition that either the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer did not consider that the bus was got inspected by the MVI on the spot of the fatal accident. Apart from that, not awarding the continuity of service by the Labour Court, also amounts to disproportionate to the gravity of charges as the petitioner foregoing about (15) years of service. Apart from that, not awarding the continuity of service by the Labour Court, also amounts to disproportionate to the gravity of charges as the petitioner foregoing about (15) years of service. The petitioner is now getting basic pay of Rs.8,290/- instead of Rs.15,000/- and odd and the total salary of Rs.16,675/- instead of Rs.32,000/- per month by not counting my previous (12) years of service. Thus, the petitioner is am suffering with severe loss and hardship. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned GO Rt. No.117 dt.17-3-2015 deserves to be set aside. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 12. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that on 18.06.2007, while the petitioner was driving the bus No.AP-11Z-1465 (Express) at 5.35 hours to be operated from Karimnagar – Nizamabad, had to arrive at Platform No.21 of Karimnagar bus station, at first hours for boarding the passengers, but he failed to apply brakes and drove the bus towards platform border wall and hit the passengers, which resulted instantaneous death of one woman, and injuries to four others. The Traffic Police, Karimnagar, registered Crime No.69/2007, dated 18.06.2007, under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. 13. A preliminary enquiry conducted by the Assistant Manager (T), Karimnagar-II Depot, and after deliberations made by the Accident Joint Enquiry Committee, clearly established that the petitioner was responsible for the fatal accident as he had not at all applied brakes to stop the bus at Nizamabad Platform No.21 in Karimnagar bus station. Consequently, he was placed under suspension duly framing the charges vide chargesheet, dated 28.06.2007. 14. Since the charges were held proved in the departmental enquiry and as the petitioner’s services were detrimental to the Corporation, he was removed from service by an order dated 11.01.2008. Aggrieved by the orders of the Deport Manager, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Karimnagar, on 04.02.2008 and the same was rejected on 12.03.2008. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the Regional Manager, Karimnagar, on 26.04.2008 and the same was considered by the Regional Manager, Karimnagar, holding that charges were held proved and in view of maintaining satisfactory record, took a lenient view, allowed the review petition by order, dated 04.09.2008 and reinstated him into service as afresh driver by order dated 04.09.2008 on humanitarian grounds. 15. 15. The respondents submit that the Labour Court in I.D.No.20/2012, after examining the evidence including Ex.W1 and Exs.M1 to M32, held that the petitioner’s negligence was clearly established and upheld the action of the Corporation, holding that his reinstatement as afresh driver was proper, therefore, dismissed the petition on 09.02.2015. 16. The award passed by the Labour Court is justified and sustainable, and does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, or perversity. The grievance of the petitioner is unsustainable and untenable. Writ Petition is devoid of merit, and pray this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 17. Perusal of the record shows that the writ petition is filed against the award dated 09.02.2015 in ID No.20 of 2012 seeking relief to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to award the petitioner’s continuity of service with all consequential benefits. Petitioner joined in the service as a driver in the year 1991 and his services were regularized in the year 1995. On 18.06.2007, petitioner was instructed to operate the bus bearing No.AP-11Z-1465 on the route Karimnagar – Nizamabad 5.30 day out service. As per the petitioner, due to brakes failure, he could not stop the bus and ran on the Nizamabad Platform No.21. Due to negligency of the driving of the driver, one woman was died and three passengers were injured. With the above incident, petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.06.2007. After conducting the domestic enquiry, petitioner was removed from service w.e.f.11.01.2008 in terms of regulation No.9(2)(8) r/w 12(13) of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967. The period from 28.06.2007 to the date of removal from service i.e. 11.01.2008 be treated as ‘not on duty.’ 18. Questioning the same, appeal was filed and the same was rejected on 12.03.2008. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, petitioner preferred review before the competent authority. After reviewing the order of the appellate authority, the review authority passed the following order: “It is observed from the records of the petitioner that he was appointed in the year of 1995. During his 12 years of service, this is the first removal from service case. However, keeping in view of maintaining satisfactory record, I would like to take a lenient view and I am inclined to give an opportunity to serve in the Organization and allow the review petition to the extent ordered below: 1. During his 12 years of service, this is the first removal from service case. However, keeping in view of maintaining satisfactory record, I would like to take a lenient view and I am inclined to give an opportunity to serve in the Organization and allow the review petition to the extent ordered below: 1. The petitioner Sri D. Kistaiah, E.319508 Ex-driver of KRMR-II Depot, is hereby reinstated into service as afresh. 2. The petitioner Sri D. Kistaiah, E 319508, driver is posted to Metpally Depot. 3. The petitioner should report at his new station within seven days from the date of receipt of orders or the orders deemed to have been cancelled.” 19. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed ID No.20 of 2012 and the said ID was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Against the same incident, the PS Karimnagar filed a chargesheet in Cr.No.69 of 2007 against the petitioner u/s 304-A, 338 of IPC. The said criminal case was ended in acquittal. The facts remains are that all witnesses have become hostile. With regard to the incident, the petitioner himself accepted that there was heavy rain and waterlogged before platforms, while applying sudden brake, same was not worked properly, due to that, the bus entered on to platform No.21, due to which, one lady was died, and three persons were injured. 20. One way or the other, the petitioner is accepting heavy rain and water logging, then he had to apply the brakes in a proper manner. A perusal of the finding report of the preliminary enquiry submitted by A.M.(T)-KRMR-II Depot shows that after deliberations were made by the Accident Joint Enquiry Committee, it is clearly established that, the petitioner was held responsible for cause of the fatal accident, as he had not at all applied brakes to stop the Bus at Nizamabad plaftfrom No.21 in Karimnagar Bus Station thereby the Bus being driven by him at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, had ploughed into Karimnagar Bus Station, duly hitting to platform wall, and pillars up to Ordinary Enquiry Room, due to which, Bus damaged, which resulted to instantaneous death of one woman, and 4 other persons sustained injuries due to hit of the bus. So, it is clear that the petitioner had not at all applied brakes to stop the Bus at Nizamabad platform No.21 in Karimnagar Bus Station thereby the Bus being driven by him at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. 21. The judgment of the Criminal Court in CC No.271 of 2009 shows that the investigating officer was examined and there is no evidence with regard to the allegation that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and on that ground the petitioner was acquitted. The nature of accident which occurred was such that, the bus was driven on to the platform by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the enquiry was not held properly and nothing on record to prove that enquiry findings are perverse or biased. It was clearly made out in the enquiry that the petitioner has checked the bus before proceeding on line. Thus, the enquiry findings cannot be brushed aside. 22. The Reviewing authority having taken a lenient view, taken the petitioner as afresh candidate, and rightly acted due to the fair record of the petitioner. As such, the said action of the Reviewing Authority is not interfered by this Court. However, taking into consideration of the following factors i.e. the said accident was due to negligence of the petitioner and the said action of the petitioner was not wanton; acquittal of the criminal case, petitioner having 15 years of clean record and more particularly, because the petitioner is treated as a fresh candidate, he lost his annual grade increments, this Court is inclined to grant 50% of back wages from 28.06.2007 to 11.01.2008, which period was treated as ‘not on duty.’ 23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to grant 50% of back wages from 28.06.2007 to 11.01.2008 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.