V. Anjaiah, vs The Vicechairman And Managing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2092 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                WRIT PETITION No.12540 of 2013
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

second respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner vide

proceedings No.PA/19(15)/2012-RM.NLG dated 25.04.2012, as

illegal and arbitrary.

2) Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents.

3) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that while the petitioner was discharging his duties on

10.05.2005 an accident took place. Therefore, the petitioner was

issued with charge sheet dated 31.05.2005, for which, the

petitioner has submitted his explanation. Without considering the

explanation submitted by the petitioner in proper perspective, an

enquiry was ordered. Though there was no evidence on record, the

petitioner was held guilty of the charge levelled against him and

inflicted the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings

dated 28.11.2005 issued by respondent No.4. In appeal, the

appellate authority viz., the Divisional Authority, Suryapet, vide

order dated 20.04.2006, was placed to modify the order of removal PK, J 2 WP_12540_2013

to that of reduction of two incremental stages for a period of two

years, which shall have effect on his future increments.

Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.7220 of

2008 before this Court wherein vide order dated 03.04.2008, the

punishment was modified to that of the pay reduction of the salary

of the petitioner shall be by two incremental stages, with

cumulative effect and that he shall be entitled to continuity of

service, without any back wages. Learned counsel has contended

that the criminal case which was filed against the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC vide C.C. No.373 of

2005 was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 14.10.2008

passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda. On

such acquittal, the petitioner has filed a Review Petition before the

second respondent on 18.09.2008. However, without assigning

any valid reasons, the Review Petition was dismissed by

respondent No.2 vide order dated 25.04.2012, which is illegal and

arbitrary. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to allow the Writ

Petition.

4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents has contended that the petitioner, while driving the

bus No.AP-10Z-31 on route Suryapet-NDCL-Miryalaguda, was

involved in a fatal accident on 10.05.2005 and hit a pedestrian who PK, J 3 WP_12540_2013

was crossing the road from left to right, as a result of which, a girl

aged 9 years sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries on the

spot, for which, a criminal case in crime No.66/2005 of

Miryalaguda Police Station was registered against the petitioner for

the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. On filing of

charge sheet, the case was numbered as C.C. No.373 of 2005 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class and simultaneously

departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner

and he was also issued with charge sheet dated 31.05.2005. As

the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing an

enquiry was ordered. As the charge was held proved in the

enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by following due

procedure. In appeal, the punishment imposed on the petitioner

was modified to that of stoppage of two annual grade increments

with cumulative effect. Thereafter, this Court in vide order dated

03.04.2008 in W.P. No.7220 of 2008 held that the petitioner is

entitled to continuity of service, without back wages and the same

was implemented accordingly w.e.f.04.08.2008. It is further

contended that on acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner

filed a Review Petition on 16.09.2009 before the Regional Manager,

Nalgonda, Second respondent herein and the same was rightly

rejected by the second respondent on the ground that there are no

valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the original PK, J 4 WP_12540_2013

authority and appellate authority. Learned Standing Counsel has

placed reliance on the decision of the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in The Commissioner of Police v. N. Gopal 1 in

support of his submissions and finally prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both

the counsel and perused the material on record.

6) A perusal of the record discloses that on 10.05.2005 while

the petitioner was discharging his duties in bus No.AP-10Z-31 on

route Suryapet to Miryalaguda, met with a fatal accident with a

pedestrian who was crossing the road from left to right, due to

which 9 years old girl succumbed to injuries and died on the spot.

Further, a criminal case was registered by Miryalaguda Police and

after due enquiry they filed charge before the jurisdictional

Magistrate and the same was numbered as C.C. No.373/2005.

Simultaneously the respondent Corporation also initiated

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge

sheet dated 31.05.2005. The respondent authorities after

conducting a detailed domestic enquiry into the charge levelled

against the petitioner and as the charge levelled against the

petitioner was held to be proved, the punishment of removal from

1 MANU/AP/0806/2002 PK, J 5 WP_12540_2013

service was ordered by the disciplinary authority, 4th respondent

herein. In appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment

to that of stoppage of two annual grade increments with

cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court

by filing W.P. No.7220 of 2008, which was disposed of by this

Court on 03.04.2008. Operative portion of the said order reads as

under:

"For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed,

modifying the order, dated 20.04.2006, passed by the 3rd

respondent, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent, through his

order, dated 24.11.2006, to the effect that the pay reduction of

the salary of the petitioner shall be by two incremental stages,

with cumulative effect and that he shall be entitled to continuity

of service, without any back wages."

As reported by the learned Standing Counsel, the order dated

03.04.2008 has been implemented. After getting acquitted in the

criminal case, vide judgment dated 14.10.2008 in C.C. No.373 of

2005 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda,

the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the second respondent

and the same was rejected by the second respondent vide

impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has driven the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without anticipation and

without taking precautionary measures and caused accident by PK, J 6 WP_12540_2013

hitting a pedestrian who was crossing the road from left to right, as

a result of which, 9 years old girl succumbed to injuries and died

on the spot. Admittedly, on the basis of the accident occurred on

10.05.2005, both the criminal proceedings and departmental

proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Police and

departmental authorities respectively. It is well settled that there

is no bar under the law to initiate parallel proceedings under both

the criminal law as well as departmental law based on one cause of

action. In the case on hand also, as against the accident occurred

on 10.05.2005, besides initiation of criminal proceedings by the

Police authorities, the respondent authorities have also initiated

departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

7) It is settled law that the proceedings under the criminal law

and service law are parallel proceedings and mere acquittal of the

accused/delinquent in criminal proceedings does not automatically

entitle him to be set at liberty from the departmental proceedings.

While passing the impugned order rejecting the review petition filed

by the petitioner, the second respondent has clearly observed that

the petitioner failed to take precautionary measures, which

resulted in death of a nine years old girl. That apart, the petitioner

having obtained a favourable order in W.P. No.7220 of 2008 filed

questioning the order passed by the appellate authority, again PK, J 7 WP_12540_2013

cannot turn around and seek exoneration from the departmental

proceedings based on the acquittal in criminal case. It is to be

seen that the impugned punishment was imposed only based on

the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department and not on

the basis of the criminal case set in motion under the criminal law.

Hence, respondent No.2 is justified in rejecting the plea of the

petitioner.

8) In this context, it is apt to refer to the relevant portions of the

decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

N. Gopal's case (referred supra), which are as under:

"23. It is true and very well settled that acquittal in a criminal case by the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction does not confer any automatic right upon the delinquent employee for his reinstatement into the service, even if the prosecution and in departmental enquiry is based on same set of facts. The nature of proof required in a criminal case for establishing the charges and the departmental proceedings for proving the misconduct is not one and same. The charges in a criminal case and departmental proceedings cannot be the same, merely because the same set of facts are involved. The misconduct under the given service rules or regulations is entirely different from that of an offence under Indian Penal Code or any penal statutes, as the case may be. On the same set of facts, the disciplinary and the criminal Court can come to different conclusions with regard to the allegations made against the delinquent officer. The conclusions so reached operate in different fields. The consequences that flow from such conclusions are also different.

25. The Supreme Court found that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference. Having found the same, the Supreme Court held that "the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental PK, J 8 WP_12540_2013

proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable." The Supreme Court interfered with the order passed by the disciplinary authority and quashed the punishment imposed upon the delinquent therein not on the ground that the case registered against the delinquent has ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court having adverted to the facts and evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case held that "the same were without there being any iota of difference. "Therefore, we have no difficulty whatsoever to agree with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the acquittal of the delinquent employees in a criminal case itself would not be a ground to order the reinstatement into the service even if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case have been initiated on the same set of facts."

9) In view of the afore-stated reasons and proposition of law,

this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by

the respondent No.2 warranting interference of this Court and the

Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs.

____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 08-09-2023.

sur