Shri M. Venkatatesan was the Branch Manager, CRC Tanjore Town Branch, who had submitted his report and proved the same before the Inquiry Officer.
The Inquiry Officer rejected the companytention of the Respondent herein that the bus was being driven at a slow speed and the accident took place to save a boy who suddenly crossed the road holding Thus it has been proved beyond doubt by the evidence adduced by the managements side that the delinquent was careless, negligent and rash in driving the bus at the time of the occurrence resulting in this accident and he is responsible for this accident and companysequences thereof and the defence evidence by way of two statements adduced by the delinquent in proof of his defence cannot be given any credit or credence for reasons already expatiated.
9 lakhs to the dependants of the victims as companypensation for loss of life.
Not only 4 persons were found to be dead at the spot, the driver and companyductor of the bus and 10 other passengers were also sustained injuries in this accident.
The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal by an order dated 29.4.88 despite holding that the scope of adjudication in a proceeding under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited and while granting approval it does number sit as a companyrt of appeal re appreciating the evidence for itself but has to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case had been made out on the charges leveled or if the findings are perverse, came to the following findings In the instant case, the domestic enquiry companyducted cannot be companysidered as fair and proper and is vitiated on account of the failure of the Enquiry officer to observe the principles of natural justice by number examining the passengers who had given the statements.
The Inquiry Officer upon companysideration of the materials brought on records by the parties therein found the Respondent guilty of misconduct in relation to the charges framed against him.
A writ petition was filed by the Appellant questioning the companyrectness or otherwise of the said order dated 1.12.1992 before the High Court.
The factual matrix of the matter is number much in dispute.
The Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Madras awarded a sum of Rs.
A writ appeal No.46/1993 filed by the Appellant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge was dismissed opining Though the learned companynsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Another Vs Rattan Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512, we hold that the said pronouncement of the Apex Court will number have any application to the present case as it was a companyverse case where the finding are based upon some evidence, namely, eye witness, and therefore, in that companytext, the Supreme Court held that number examination of the passenger will number vitiate the enquiry.
It is number in dispute that the Branch Manager of the Appellant, Mr. Venkatesan visited the scene of the accident at about 4 p.m. on the same day and companyducted an investigation.
The bus driven by the Respondent herein is said to have swerved suddenly to the extreme left side of the road which was lined with tamarind trees on both sides.
The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in his impugned judgement further failed to take into companysideration that even if the statements of the said passengers are ignored, the misconduct allegedly companymitted by the Respondent would stand proved on the basis of the evidence adduced by Shri M. Venkatesan together with the circumstantial evidences brought on records.
The Respondent herein was a driver of a bus bearing No.
As an industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal the Appellant herein filed an application under Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of approval of the said order of dismissal.
125 of 1985 rejecting the grant of approval sought for as regard order of dismissal passed against the Respondent herein was dismissed.
The Respondent allegedly despite numbericing that another bus was companying from the opposite direction did number slow down the vehicle in order to avoid companylision therewith.
On account of your aforesaid act the entire left side of the bus dashed against the tamarind tree branch which resulted in the passengers at the left side of the bus to sustain grievous injuries and that seven passengers died in the aforesaid accident and about 10 passengers sustained grievous injuries and that you were responsible for the same.
He found that there was numberbrake tyre mark of the bus on the road.
It is said that the Bus was being driven at a speed of 80 k.m.p.h.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the said order.
Further, you were responsible for tarnishing the fair name of the Corporation amongst general public.
The impact of the said companylusion was so severe that the bus dashed against the protruding branches and stumps of the tamarind trees, then dashed against the bus resulting the left side of the bus companypletely damaged as a result whereof 7 passengers died and several persons were seriously injured.
On such finding the approval sought for by the Appellant herein was rejected.
In the domestic inquiry that followed the said charge sheet, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Appellant.
In furtherance of the said report, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Respondent on the following charges On 18.5.85 while you served as the driver in the bus bearing No.
During the said inspection some passengers were examined.
The Respondent was, thereafter, dismissed from the services by the Disciplinary Authority.
All the two seaters seats on the entire left side of the bus were found totally damaged.
In respect of the buses which companye from the opposite direction, you have been very negligent and in a careless and irresponsible manner move the bus very fast and dashed the front left side of the bus against the branch of the tamarind tree which was cut and found at the left side of the road and after that turned the bus towards the right side and thereby caused heavy damage to the bus.
He furnished a detailed account of the position of the bus vis vis the other bus after the companylision took place.
While you were on duty as aforesaid, even though it was a straight road and was visible to a distance of about 300 ft.
P 9 or in his written explanation to charge memo, in which he has stated that he effectively used brake and halted the bus after impact.
He submitted a detailed report.
The road at the place of the accident was 300 ft wide and straight one.
The delinquent has number alleged any brake failure in his earlier statement in Ex.
Further, you were responsible for the loss of accessories of the bus to the tune of Rs.30,000/ and also you were responsible for the loss of revenue for the Corporation.
Out of the said 10 passengers, 3 subsequently died in the hospital owing to the injuries sustained by them.
TMN 4148 you have been very careless in your duty and around 3.00 p.m. near Poondi dashed against a tamarind tree which was at the edge of the road and thereby caused a very big accident.
B. Sinha, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.46/1993 as also the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the said Court in a Writ Petition No.11113/88 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the Appellant herein for setting aside order dated 29.4.88 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Madras in Approval Petition No.
