LI Network
Published on: October 3, 2023 at 12:11 IST
The Telangana High Court has affirmed that when an accident occurs due to a passenger attempting to catch a moving bus, the responsibility cannot be placed on the driver, even if an inquiry determines that there was a lack of anticipation and negligent driving on the part of the driver.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka ruled that the driver should not be charged for such an accident.
“In view of the above evidence and also in view of the Circular issued by the Corporation, though the Enquiry Officer held the driver responsible for not anticipating the movement of the lady in question, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner driver shall not be charge-sheeted.”
This judgment was rendered in a writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 27.01.2006, in which the petitioner, an employee, was penalized with a two-year reduction in pay by two incremental stages, with permanent implications for future increments.
The petitioner has been employed as a bus driver by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) (now TSRTC) since 1991. He was suspended on 08.02.2004 following a fatal accident attributed to alleged negligent driving.
He provided an explanation, asserting that he was not at fault and that the accident occurred when a pedestrian came into contact with the bus while he was making a ‘U-turn at Women’s College. Despite his defense, an inquiry was conducted, and the penalty was imposed on 27.01.2006.
The Corporation contended that the petitioner’s negligent driving led to a fatal accident, constituting misconduct under Regulation 28(ix)(b) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The Corporation also maintained that the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to present his case, and thus, no procedural irregularity could be attributed to the Corporation in determining the extent of the punishment.
In response, the petitioner argued that he was not at fault, and the deceased pedestrian had come into contact with the bus on her own. He alleged that the Enquiry Officer conducted a biased inquiry and that he was penalized for the actions of others, which he claimed violated the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner also referred to a Corporation circular that stated drivers should not be charge-sheeted when accidents occur due to passengers boarding or alighting at unauthorized locations or on moving buses.
The Court considered the evidence, including the preliminary inquiry report, which suggested that the accident happened because the lady pedestrian was ambiguously trying to catch a bus and may have been pushed by the crowd. The Court also took note of the Corporation’s circular.
Based on the evidence and the Corporation’s circular, the Court concluded that the petitioner should not have been charge-sheeted. Upholding the circular, the Bench granted relief to the petitioner(Driver).
Case Title: L. Shankar vs. APSRTC
