Madras high court upholds the dismissal order of bus driver in rash and negligent driving case.
Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld the order of a single judge who refused to reinstate a driver of the TN state transport corporation (Salem division), Dharmapuri, involved in a road accident, in which 10 persons died and nine others were injured in Dharmapuri in 2002.
A division bench, comprising justices N. Paul Vasanthakumar and R. Mahadevan, dismissed the appeal filed by driver K. Munusamy, challenging the order of the single judge dated October 28, 2009, which reversed the order of the labour court, ordering reinstatement of the driver.
On August 19, 2002, Munusamy, while driving the bus between Papparapatti and Dharmapuri, caused an accident due to his rash and negligent driving, in which 10 persons died and nine others were injured. He was proceeded with departmentally, and suspended from service on August 20.
A criminal case was also registered against him. A charge memo was issued on August 27 for rash and negligent driving and a domestic enquiry was conducted with findings against him. Based on this, he was dismissed from service by an order dated December 28, 2002.
Munusamy moved the labour court in Salem, and on March 25, 2004, the court modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of reinstatement with continuous service and other benefits without back wages.
Aggrieved, the management moved the high court and a single judge reversed the labour court order. Against this, Munusamy filed the present petition.
The bench said road accidents in India, especially in TN, were on the increase. In Tamil Nadu, in 2012, of the 15,072 road accidents reported, 16,172 persons were reported to have died and several hundreds of persons sustained grievous injuries.
On an average, in TN, one road accident takes place every three minutes and three persons are killed every two hours. Considering the factual aspects and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and high courts, we are unable to see any reason to interfere with the order of the single judge in setting aside the award of the labour court, the bench added.
( Source : dc )
Next Story
