Point of Law :
Even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings, the same does not bar departmental proceedings, the present set of facts stand on a different footing from that of the above case. In the present case on hand, the criminal case and the disciplinary case are on the same set of facts and same cause of action. In that scenario, when the competent criminal Court, after conducting due trial, acquits the accused, there cannot be any contra finding in the departmental proceedings so as to award punishment to the accused

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Award of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad (for short, Labour Court) in I.D.No.71 of 2002, dated 23.09.2004, which was published in G.O.Rt.No.364, Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.I) Department, dated 09.02.2005.

2. The brief facts of the case which led to file the present writ petition are as follows:

(a) The first respondent was appointed as Driver G.II on 17.08.1990 in RTC. While operating bus bearing No.AP9Z 5351 on 08.09.2000, the first respondent caused an accident in which a person standing beside Sharajpet main road died. The Police, Alair, registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2000 against the first respondent under Section 304-A of IPC for causing death of a person by driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.853 of 2000 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir (for short, criminal Court). The criminal Court, on merits, dismissed C.C.No.853 of 2000, by order dated 06.08.2001, acquitting the first respondent from the charges levelled against him, after conducting trial.

(b) Simultaneously, the petitioner-RTC issued a charge memo to the first respondent with the following charges:

“(i) For having driven the vehicle No. AP 9Z 5351 of Yadagirigutta Depot in rash and negligent manner on 8-9-2000, resulting your bus dashed against a person who stood besides Sharajpet main road and succumbed to injuries, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

(ii) For having failed to stop the vehicle on the spot where the accident took place and brought the vehicle to Alair Bus Station and allowed all the passengers to get down from the bus, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxx) (a) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963.”

(c) In pursuance of the charge memo, an enquiry was ordered and the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Nalgonda, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. As the first respondent failed to attend the enquiry despite receipt of notice, the Enquiry Officer conducted ex parte enquiry on 05.03.2001 and submitted his report to the petitioner- RTC holding that the charges are proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice of removal dated 10.08.2001 was issued to the first respondent, for which, he submitted explanation. After perusing the explanation, the petitioner-RTC passed orders of removal dated 13.09.2001, removing the first respondent from service. The appeal filed by the first respondent was considered and rejected by order dated 22.03.2002. Challenging his removal, the first respondent filed I.D.No.71 of 2002 before the Labour Court.

3. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Labour Court, by its Award dated 23.09.2004, came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the first respondent are not proved and the same are not maintainable. Accordingly, the Labour Court, set aside the removal order dated 13.09.2001 and directed the petitioner-RTC to reinstate the first respondent into service with continuity of service and back wages, however, without attendant benefits.

4. Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-RTC, submits 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 the nature of evidence and proceedings in a departmental enquiry and criminal case are distinct and different and the findings of criminal case are not binding on the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner-RTC has no right to take disciplinary action for the same offence consequent of acquittal in C.C.No.853 of 2000, is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, he relied on decisions of the Apex Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. V. Noida, (2007) 10 SCC 385 and Gujrat SRTC V. Kadarbhai J.S