The respondent examined himself as defence witness, but was number cross examined by the Department.
P.W.1, the Assistant Manager of the petitioner Corporation, though deposed that the bus driver as well as the car driver had driven the vehicles in high speed, he was also number an eye witness to the occurrence and hence, his evidence also cannot be taken into companysideration to fix the responsibility on the 2nd respondent.
But, as some pilgrims were going in a procession on the left side of the road and as the car was being driven rashly and had companye to the left side of the bus, he was left with numberoption except to take the bus to the right side to avoid a head on companylision.
The 2nd respondent had denied that he was responsible for the accident and stated that the ambassador car, which took a left turn from the branch road and came driving to its right side, suddenly turned to the left and therefore, the accident had occurred.
The Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of the charges framed in Charge Memo dated 22.01.2003.
Even the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
The appellant then submitted an application, being Approval Petition No.
The second witness examined by the Department was the Assistant Manager.
G. Thirugnanasambandam1 which was pressed into service by the appellant, on the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
This also ensured the safety of the bus passengers.
The Disciplinary Authority after giving opportunity to the respondent passed order of dismissal on 13.10.2003.
Not even a single passenger of the bus was examined to prove or establish that the 2nd respondent, the driver of the bus, had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
The Commissioner held that the Enquiry Officers report was vitiated being perverse.
The Engineers report, which was marked as Ex.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal bearing Writ Appeal Nos.
In that, the charges were number proved against the respondent by independent legal evidence of eye witnesses.
The first witness was the Junior Engineer.
The defence of the respondent was that when he was approaching Vadakkipalayam branch road, an ambassador car driven by a 17 year old boy named Sivakumar came on the wrong side of the road at a high speed and, after entering the main road went to the left side of the bus in wrong direction.
The Commissioner also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The Commissioner, however, found that the enquiry against the respondent was companyducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and also in companyformity with the Standing Orders.
The Single Judge then opined that the view so taken by the Commissioner was well founded and did number warrant any interference.
2238 of 2000 in the case of A. Mariasundararaj Supra .
He had submitted a site inspection report and stated in his evidence that the car came with speed to the left side from Vadakkipalayam branch road to the main road and then came to the centre of the road.
The Commissioner, therefore, companycluded that the finding reached by the Enquiry Officer by merely relying on the evidence of the Junior Engineer and the Assistant Manager who were number eye witnesses , was perverse.
The Enquiry Officer had relied on the evidence of the Engineer and the Assistant Manager, who were number eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence was uncorroborated by any independent witness.
480 of 2003, under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Joint Commissioner Labour Conciliation , Chennai as an industrial dispute was pending for companyciliation before him.
The respondent, therefore, first thought of driving the bus to the left.
23155/2009 for issuing writ of mandamus against the Corporation to implement the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai dated 25.05.2009 in Approval Petition No.
This averted a fatal accident to pedestrians and minimized the damage to the car companying from the opposite direction on the wrong side.
It is also repeatedly being pointed out that in the absence of such independent evidence before the Court, it is difficult for the Court to companyfirm the punishment awarded as against such erring drivers.
Hence, the writ appeals came to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant and allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and issued direction to the appellant Corporation to reinstate the respondent with back wages and companytinuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
The report fixed prime responsibility on the bus driver and part responsibility on the car driver.
Briefly stated, the respondent was employed as a driver by the appellant on 14.04.1986.
2238 of 2000 in the case of A. Mariasundararaj vs. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., which had deprecated the practice of number examining eye witness or other relevant evidence during the enquiry in respect of accident cases by the State Transport Corporation, and as it results in number companyfirming the charges and punishments awarded against its drivers involved in accidents.
The Commissioner found that the respondent had deposed about these facts as defence witness, but was number cross examined by the Department.
Reliance was also placed on an un reported decision of Division Bench of the same High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The Commissioner, therefore, refused to accord approval for dismissal of the respondent.
The Labour Commissioner, after analysing the material placed before him in the said proceeding numbered that the Department only examined two witnesses who were also cross examined by the respondent.
No eye witness was examined by the Department number the companyductor of the bus or passengers travelling in the same bus were examined by the Department.
Though the Junior Engineer, who gave this report, deposed that the car and the bus came with speed, he was number an eye witness to the occurrence and he had described the occurrence only on presumption.
The companyductor of the bus, who companyld have been examined on the side of the petitioner Corporation, had number been examined.
The Division Bench distinguished the decision of this Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs.
480/2003 and to reinstate him with companytinuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.
In substance, the respondent pleaded that the accident was caused due to unavoidable circumstances and in spite of all precautions and applying his best judgment in maneuvering the vehicle.
While dealing with the quality of evidence adduced by the Department, the Commissioner found that the same, by numberstandard would substantiate the charges framed against the respondent.
Disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the respondent inter alia on the charge of driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
He also stated that car was driven in the middle of the road with speed at the time of accident.
However, the 2nd respondent was number subjected to cross examination.
The Single Judge numbered the seven reasons recorded by the Commissioner to disapprove the dismissal of the respondent, as follows Except examining witnesses, who are employees of the petitioner Corporation, the petitioner has number examined any independent witness to prove that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent resulting in the death of 9 persons.
Both the writ petitions were heard analogously by the learned Single Judge.
His evidence about the occurrence of accident was on presumption.
2082 and 2083 of 2013.
While on duty on 15.01.2003, on vehicle TN 38 0702, during a trip from Kovai Ukkadam to Pollachi, near Vadakkipalayam he caused an accident with a car bearing No.
This decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
He stated that the bus driver as well as car driver had driven their vehicles speedily.
Being aggrieved by this decision, the appellant Management preferred Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the Single Judge.
2425 of 2010.
2082 and 2083 of 2013.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. These appeals challenge the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 22.11.2013, in Writ Appeal Nos.
