( 1 ) THE question involved in both the writ petitions is as to whether acquittal in a criminal case, would preclude disciplinary action being initiated against an employee for the very same charges. Since common questions of law have been raised in both these writ petitions, they were heard together and are now disposed of by a common order. It would be suffice if the facts in W. P. No. 3892 of 2000 are taken note of.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a chowkidar with the Central warehousing Corporation. On the intervening night of lst/2nd December, 1986 six bags of rice were stolen from the Central warehousing Corporation Godown. Petitioner was placed under suspension in the month of December, 1986, along with five other chowkidars, and was issued memo dated 8. 1. 1987 directing him to show- cause as to why action should not be taken to remove him from service. A criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner in C. C. No. 74/87, before the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Suryapet, under sections 457 and 381 I. P. C. Petitioner was issued charge-sheet in proceedings dated 27. 2. 1987, enclosing the statement of imputations, and was directed to submit his statement of defence. Petitioner submitted his explanation thereto.

( 3 ) THE criminal case instituted against the petitioner ended in his acquittal on 14. 9. 1987. Petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent to reinstate him into service in view of his clean acquittal on merits by the criminal court. However the respondents proceeded with the departmental enquiry. Initially, in the month of April, 1987, one Sri Moizuddin, deputy Manager (General) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and subsequently in september, 1987 Sri P. S. Joshi, Deputy manager (Technical), Vijayawada was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28. 3. 1988 holding the petitioner herein and sri K. Mallaiah (petitioner in W. P. 3897/2000) guilty of the charges levelled against them. On receipt of the Enquiry Report dated 25. 3. 1988, the disciplinary authority, (3rd respondent), by order dated 26. 5. 1988, inflicted on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. The said order of removal was communicated, to the petitioner, vide memo dated 27. 5. 1988. Against the order of removal dated 26. 5. 1988 passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 30. 6. 1988 before the appellate authority (2nd respondent herein ). The 2nd respondent, by order dated 10. 8. 1990, rejected the appeal and confirmed the penalty of removal. The order of the appellate authority was communicated, to the petitioner, vide memo dated 18. 9. 1990. The petitioner herein and Sri KMallaiah, (petitioner in w. P. No. 3897/2000), filed W. P. 9769/88 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 18. 3. 1998 while dismissing the writ petition, gave the petitioners liberty to file a review petition under Regulation 69 of the central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) regulations, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the regulations ) before the 1st respondent within one month. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed review petition on 8. 4. 1998. Since no orders were passed thereon, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 244411/ 99 and as, in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent passed orders on 3. 12. 1999 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner, W. P. No. 244411/99 was dismissed as infructuous. The order of the 1st respondent dated 3. 12. 1999 was communicated to the petitioner by the 4th respondent in Memo dated 16. 12. 1999. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition came to be filed.

( 4 ) BEFORE this Court, Sri A. V. Sesha sai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that since the charge in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings is one and the same, on the petitioners acquittal on merits by the competent criminal court, departmental proceedings should have been dropped.

( 5 ) IN support o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document