SATYABRATA SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order dated 19-11-1999. passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition W. P. No. 2375 of 1999, filed by the appellant herein.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein in the afore mentioned writ petition questioned the purported action of the respondent Corporation in proceeding to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

( 3 ) THE fact of the matter in brief is that a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on 15-2-1996 as regards an accident that allegedly occurred on account of his rash and negligent driving resulting in the loss of a valuable life of a cyclist, and by reason whereof the image of the respondent- corporation was badly damaged. A criminal case was also registered against the appellant under Section 304-A IPC in c. C. No. 177 of 1996 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda. The said case resulted in the acquittal of the appellant. It is admitted at the bar that the appellant had not been driving the vehicle involved in the accident, as held by the criminal Court.

( 4 ) BE that as it may, the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent- corporation should be permitted to continue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant.

( 5 ) IT is true that the validity of the departmental proceedings was subject- matter in earlier writ proceedings and this court permitted the respondent- corporation to proceed with the departmental proceedings upon conclusion of the criminal case. Before the learned single Judge, as also before us, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the decision of the apex Court in M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines ltd. 1 wherein having regard to the fact that the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings viz. , departmental proceedings and the criminal case being one and the same, it was held:". . . . . . . WITHOUT there being any iota of difference. The distinction which is usually drawn between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case. "

( 6 ) IN the instant case, the appellant qua employee is not charged with the commission of any misconduct. He by reason of the alleged act of rashness and negligence of driving of the vehicle as a result whereof a valuable life of a cyclist was lost, is said to have damaged the reputation of the respondent-Corporation. Since rash and negligence on the part of the driver in the driving of the vehicle and/or his driving of the vehicle did not stand proved in the criminal case the question of the appellant causing any damage to the reputation of the Corporation does not arise.

( 7 ) MR. Harinath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- corporation, however, placed strong reliance upon a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in V. Srinivas vs. Superintendent of Police2, in which one of us s. B. Sinha, CJ, was a member. In paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment it was held:"7. It is further well settled that even in a case where the criminal trial ends in acquittal in favour of the delinquent employee, there does not exist any embargo on the part of the disciplinary authority in initiating disciplinary proceedings on the self same charges. As noticed herein before, in Paul Anthony s (supra), the supreme Court itself has categorically held that it is possible that a person can be found guilty of commission of misconduct despite his acquittal in the criminal trial. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, would urge that as in the instant case the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence adduced before the Criminal Court and the disciplinary authorities being the same without any variance, exception to the aforementioned rule woul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document