Only eye-witnesses can prove charges of negligent driving, says HC

The Madras High Court has said only eye-witnesses can prove charges of rash and negligent driving, without any such witnesses, such charge would not hold good. Justice K Ravichandrabaabu made the observation while dismissing an appeal moved by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) against the order of a labor court in November, 2013, directing it to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to kin of a driver, who was wrongly terminated by the corporation.

The late G Gopal was working as a driver for the corporation's Villupuram division and on February 14, 1999, the vehicle driven by him met with an accident in which three people died. Gopal had claimed that the accident was not due to his negligence or rash driving and that the vehicle was not properly maintained by the corporation.

However, after framing charges, the management conducted a domestic inquiry and terminated the services of Gopal with effect from August 16, 1999. Aggrieved, Gopal moved the labor court challenging his dismissal. As Gopal died during the pendency of the dispute, the labor court impleaded his wife and children in the case.

After considering the fact that in the domestic inquiry, no eye-witnesses were examined to substantiate the charge leveled against Gopal, the labor directed the corporation to pay Rs two lakh as compensation to his kin. Challenging the same, TNSTC moved the present appeal.

Rejecting the appeal, Justice Ravichandrabaabu said, "Needless to say that the right persons to speak about the accident are the eye-witnesses to the same. Only those persons will be in a position to speak as to whether the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner." The judge further said admittedly, no such eye-witness was examined in this case, adding the management, while conducting the independent domestic inquiry, is not justified in simply relying on the FIR alone, without examining the eyewitnesses. He said, therefore, the labor court was right in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of the deceased from the service is not just and proper.