Patara Bojja Rao v. The Andrha Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2011 Date :26.7.2016 Between :

Patara Bojja Rao S/o Abbai Eleswaram depot R/o Devara Madugula village Chiviti Dibbalu post Y Ramavaram mandal, E G District Petitioner And The APSRTC Rep by its VC & MD RTC X Road, Hyderabad and another Respondents The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2011 ORAL ORDER:

Petitioner was found to have caused accident of bus driven by him on 2.1.2006, where it was alleged that, he hit a scooterist resulting in minor damages to scooter. It appears that there was lot of galata and since bus could not move further, passengers travelling in the bus were shifted to another bus. Petitioner was taken to the Government hospital for medical examination of the condition of the petitioner. On examination, the medical officer reported that the petitioner 'consumed Alcohol' but 'not under the influence of Alcohol'. Based on the said report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner.

Sum and substance of the allegation of the first charge is that petitioner drove the vehicle in Alcoholic condition and second charge is that he failed to give spot explanation in spite of asking for 2 or 3 times on 3.1.2006 and 4.2.2006. In the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges as proved. Based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. Petitioner was also unsuccessful in the appeal filed against the order of removal. Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by filing I.D. No. 36 of 2007. The Labour Court, concurred with the findings in the enquiry and punishment imposed and accordingly the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent corporation.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no proof that the petitioner was found to have been in an inebriated condition while driving the vehicle and concocted story was created. According to him, no accident took place on the fateful day and there was no complaint filed about the alleged accident; the Medical Officer did not examine the petitioner by taking blood samples but only by oral examination, he had given such a report. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Labour Court erred in not examining the Medical Officer, whose evidence was crucial. In the absence of evidence of the Medical Officer and proof of conducting appropriate medical examination, there is no basis in holding the petitioner as found to have consumed Alcohol while on duty. He further submits that Labour Court erred in relying on memo filed by the petitioner stating that he has no

objection against the validity of the domestic enquiry procedure and the same is exfacie illegal.

4.

Learned standing counsel submits that the medical officer report is clear and categorical that petitioner consumed Alcohol while on duty. Sequence of the events would disclose that some untoward incident occurred on the fateful day which compelled the respondents to shift the passengers to some other bus. The bus halted for long time since it met with accident and lot of inconvenience was caused to the passengers and image of the respondent corporation severely damaged due to the conduct of the petitioner. The statement of conductor of the bus that the petitioner had consumed Alcohol strengthened by the report of the Medical Officer would disclose that petitioner has not attended to duty in proper manner, therefore liable to be penalized.

The act of driving the vehicle by consuming Alcohol is grave offence as it not only involve the safety of the passengers traveling in the bus but also the road users. He further submits that detailed enquiry was conducted and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. He further submits that petitioner failed to submit the status report and when called to furnish the status report, he was found in rest room, in drunken condition. He therefore defends the action of the respondent in removing the petitioner from the service.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner was specifically asked as what was the reason for shifting the passengers when the bus was in the midst of its journey. Learned counsel is fair in submitting that the bus did not develop any mechanical problems. This would clearly show that there was some untoward incident on the fateful day which lends credence to support the theory of the respondents that the bus was involved in an accident by hitting the scooter and petitioner was driving the vehicle after consuming Alcohol. The conductor of the bus is the crucial witness to the incident. His statement on oath narrates the events unfolded on fateful day. Record would disclose that conductor stated that petitioner was in drunken condition. The Medical Officer report strengthens the statement of the conductor. The fact that petitioner was found to be in drunken condition in the rest room a day after the incident when he was called upon to give statement of what transpired on the day, would strengthen the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was

in the habit of consuming Alcohol while attending to duty. It is not the case of the petitioner that Medical Officer is inimical to him. No serious allegation of bias is made against the conductor. Thus, the statement of the conductor and report of the medical officer supports the findings recorded by the enquiry officer.

6. As noticed from the award, on behalf of the petitioner, memo was filed on 25.11.2008 accepting the validity of the domestic enquiry. Once petitioner accepts the validity of the domestic enquiry, findings recorded in the domestic enquiry become final. On detailed analysis of the evidence on record, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The said findings of the enquiry officer are accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. T h e Labour Court has analysed the charges leveled against the petitioner and based on the documents brought on record held that charge was validly proved. 7.

Labour Court held that in view of the Medical report and the statement of the conductor of the bus which was driven by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner consumed Alcohol while on duty. The Labour Court justified the report of the Medical Officer holding that 'Employee had consumed Alcohol but he was not under the influence of Alcohol' and observed that since there was time gap of more than 2 hours before medical examination, influence of the Alcohol could not have been noticed by the Medical Officer.

8. I therefore, see no error in the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner resulting in removal from service, which is affirmed by the Labour Court. Further, in the facts of the case, I see no irregularity or illegality in the procedure followed by the Labour Court warranting interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. ______________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:26.7.2016 TVK

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4086 of 2011 Date :26.7.2016