The judgment established that reliance on a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's decision to punish an employee in a service matter, despite the employee's acquittal in a criminal case arising from the same incident, is unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. Third supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The petitioner was Driver of a Bus run by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.S.R.T.C.'). An accident took place on 15.07.1995 and, raising allegations against the petitioner that he was negligent in driving the bus, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. At the same time, a Motor Accident Claim Petition, being Case No. 710 of 1995, was filed by the dependants of the deceased victim against U.P.S.R.T.C. before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.A.C.T.'). An inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer of U.P.S.R.T.C. in the departmental proceedings recording no established guilt of the petitioner, however, while awarding punishment to him in terms of deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,11,000/-from his payables and stoppage of two increments, the Regional Manager of U.P.S.R.T.C. placed reliance upon the judgment/award passed by the M.A.C.T. in the aforesaid compensation case, particularly, the statement of the petitioner who appeared as a witness on behalf of U.P.S.R.T.C. before the Tribunal and stated that accident had not taken place by his bus. The Tribunal took a view that the said statement was falsely made and, ultimately, passed award of compensation against U.P.S.R.T.C. on 27.01.1998.

4. It is contended by Shri Jauhari that the petitioner was not a party to the Motor Accidents Claim Petition and, though his statement was dis-believed by the M.A.C.T. , the U.P.S.R.T.C., in its written statement took a clear stand that the petitioner was not negligent in driving the bus and the reason behind occurrence of accident was presence of numerous passengers on the spot and that when the petitioner stopped the bus, a passenger, while trying to enter into it through window, fell down and came under the left rear tyre of the bus, got himself injured and was sent for medical treatment but, ultimately, died. It is further contended that a criminal case under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner arising out of same accident and the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahjahanpur, by order dated 01.05.2008, acquitted him by recording a clear finding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond doubt. Further contention is that after two days from the date of order of acquittal, the departmental Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 03.05.2008, however, copy of the acquittal order could not be filed before the Appellate Authority as there was no sufficient time gap between acquittal and dismissal of appeal.

5. In sum and substance, the contention is that the petitioner, not being a party to the Motor Accident Claim Petition, he did not get opportunity to file an appeal against the award of Tribunal and, the U.P.S.R.T.C., on the other hand accepted the award of compensation and did not challenge the same before Appellate Court. The submission is that except the award of the M.A.C.T., there was no other material before the U.P.S.R.T.C. to hold the petitioner guilty and, once, in the criminal case, the petitioner's guilt has not been established, the orders impugned cannot sustain.

6. Shri A.K. Saxena, learned counsel for U.P.S.R.T.C. submits that the Punishing Authority has recorded dis-satisfaction against the inquiry report, inasmuch as, there was sufficient material before the Authorities, particularly, the judgment of M.A.C.T., to form an opinion that the petitioner was guilty and no contrary view could be taken by the Department against order of a Court of law. However, he does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of Judicial Magistrate after passing of the first punishment order and before dism