Where an employee is dismissed following a departmental inquiry but subsequently acquitted in a criminal trial, reinstatement must be considered under departmental circulars unless the acquittal is strictly based on technical grounds; if the evidence was tested and proved insufficient, the acquittal is considered to be on merits.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Venkateswerllu Kesamsetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for reinstatement into service vide proceedings No.L4/785(05)/2024-HR dated 12.03.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Judgment in C.C.No.18622 of 2019 dated 11.09.2023.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the petitioner was working as Driver, an elderly pedestrian fell down, resulting in an accident on 17.07.2019. Based on the said incident, a charge Memo was issued to the petitioner, which reads as under:

"For having driven vehicle No. AP 28 Z 0714 in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation, causing a fatal accident in front of TOP Collection (Shop) near RTC X Roads while performing duty with Service No. 17/2 on Route 40 on 17.07.2019 at about 19:30 hours, while proceeding from Secunderabad to Koti towards Ashoknagar after taking a U-turn, you hit a lady pedestrian, causing her to fall, and the rear right tyre of the bus ran over her, resulting in severe injuries to her stomach and right leg. She expired at about 21:46 hours while undergoing treatment, showing your carelessness and negligence while performing duty, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28(ix)(b) and (xxxii) of TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service on 18.12.2020 and the same was confirmed in appeal, revision and 3rd level Appeal-Mercy Petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised Industrial Dispute vide ID No.9 of 2022 on the file of Labour Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 23.08.2023. The criminal case arising the same incident in Crime No.240/2018 of Chikkadpally Police Station, numbered as C.C.No.18622 of 2019 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, ended in acquittal of the petitioner on 11.09.2023.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Rule-15 of the Circular No.PD-43/86 dated 16.04.1986 provides that, where an employee is removed in departmental enquiry but acquitted by a Criminal Court/Appellate Court, he shall be entitled for reinstatement. Pursuant to his acquittal, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.12.2023 to respondent No.3 along with the Judgment, seeking reinstatement in terms of the aforesaid circular.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner’s representation vide impugned proceedings dated 12.03.2024 and the same is violative of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3470 of 2024 dated 24.02.2024 and the Judgment of the Criminal Court. The punishment of removal is also disproportionate to the incident under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, especially in view of the said acquittal. In similar matters, this Court disposed of W.P.No.18680 of 2013, dated 13.10.2023 and W.P.No.23747 of 2023, dated 29.08.2023. In view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 12.03.2024 by directing the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefits.

7. T