1. Petitioner was working as Driver. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charge memo was issued containing two allegations. In the first charge, it was alleged that the petitioner drove the vehicle bearing No.AP10Z2844 between Gokavaram-Mandapet service on 16.07.2005 in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation at high-way turning and hit an auto, which was coming in opposite direction resulting in the death of a passenger in the auto and two persons in the auto sustained major injuries and four persons sustained minor injuries. In the second charge, it was alleged that the petitioner drove the vehicle on the right side of road instead of left side and has not given space to the auto, which was coming in opposite direction and thus, he failed to take proper precautionary measures to avert the accident resulting in the death of a person in the auto. It was also alleged that damage was caused to the extent of Rs.300/- to the vehicle. Domestic enquiry was conducted on the said charges. The enquiry officer recorded finding that petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him. Based on the findings in the domestic enquiry, disciplinary authority passed orders on 11.11.2005 removing the petitioner from service. Appeal and revision filed by petitioner were rejected. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised Industrial Dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.9 of 2007. The Labour Court passed a -Nil- award on 04.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

2. To complete the narration of facts, on the very same incident, criminal prosecution was launched against petitioner. Petitioner was accused in C.C.No.1680 of 2006 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. Vide judgment dated 18.01.2010, petitioner was acquitted.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent No.1 and Sri S.V.Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at the time of incident, there was a steep road and when the petitioner was driving the vehicle with low speed to climb the road, the auto driver, who came from opposite direction, was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle which resulted in accident. According to learned counsel, petitioner was not negligent in driving the vehicle and therefore, disciplinary action was erroneously initiated against him and that the stand of petitioner was not appreciated and in predetermined manner, punishment of removal from service was imposed.

4.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the accident occurred since the driver of auto lost balance and failed to apply the brakes. If only the driver of auto was careful in driving, the accident could not have occurred. Learned counsel further submits that on the very same allegations, the criminal prosecution was launched against petitioner and on conducting of full-fledged trial and on analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of auto and acquitted the petitioner. He would therefore submit that as the charges levelled against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry and the allegations made in the criminal case being the same and as a consequence of acquittal in the criminal case, petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service. He would submit that in view of the findings recorded by the trial Court, the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings are liable to be nullified by granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme C