Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to grant interim relief to Aadeshwara Traders, who were told to close down their stone crushing unit at Vattinagulapalli. The panel of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was hearing a writ plea filed by the firm questioning the April 27 proceedings of the environmental engineer of TS Pollution Control Board (TSPCB). It was the case of PCB that the petitioner was operating its unit without a certificate for establishment and certificate for operations. The property where the petitioner sought to carry out eco-friendly stone crushing was in the prohibited area of of Osmansagar lake covered by GO Ms. 111. The order could also refer to an earlier order imposing a fine of Rs 49.3 lakh on the petitioner. The amount was brought down to Rs 24.6 lakh by the NGT.
HC for service continuity
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi reiterated the settled principle of the service law that the disciplinary authority cannot impose the punishment, which is not stipulated or prescribed under rules or regulations. However, given the peculiar facts of the case, the court refused to set aside the order of the revisional authority since much time had lapsed. The court was of the considered view that instead of setting aside the order, the interest of justice would be met if continuity of service was granted to the petitioner. The court was dealing with a writ plea field by T. Ramulu challenging the action of TSRTC in disciplinary proceedings. Appointed driver in 1996, the petitioner was chargesheeted in 2009 for having caused an accident leading to the death of a pedestrian. Disciplinary proceedings led to his removal from the service. The revisional authority in 2010, while holding that the order of removal as well as rejection of appeal passed by the earlier authorities were proper and justified, took a lenient view on humanitarian grounds, set aside the orders of removal and directed his reinstatement on certain terms and conditions. The case of the petitioner was that the accident happened because the pedestrian suddenly coming on to the road to stop the bus without knowing that it is an Express Service and in the process, the pedestrian dashed in the middle of the bus and that there was no negligence on his part and inspite of the same, he was made responsible. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order of removal as well as the order of revisional authority to appoint him as a fresh driver. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner rejoined services by agreeing to the terms and conditions imposed but after 6 years filed the writ petition. Condoning the delay and without going into Justice Juvvadi Sridevi however held it is to be noted that while driving any vehicle on roads especially when handling a heavy vehicle like bus, the driver must be cautious and patient as there will always be a scope for the smaller vehicles, pedestrians or animals coming on to the roads for various reasons and they must handle the bus carefully to avoid any collusion with them. Coming to the defence of the petitioner that the accident was ostensibly caused by the sudden appearance of the pedestrian, it is to be seen that had he been cautious and at a low speed, he could have controlled the vehicle and avoided the accident, for which, they are trained. For his lack of anticipation, he cannot blame the pedestrian for the accident, as no pedestrian would want to die in such a manner. However, the judge modified the order of the revisional authority declaring that the out of service period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement shall be treated as continuous service for all purposes and the petitioner is entitled for the difference in salary as per rules.
