S.G.Rao v. Depot Maager, APSRTC, Gajuwaka Bus Depot, Visakhapatam & Ors.

any legal infirmity. It is borne out from the record that only two points were argued before the learned Single Judge. The first was that the punishment imposed by the employer was arbitrary and unjust and the second was that in view of his acquittal in Criminal Case No. 414 of 1995, the disciplinary authority could not have punished the appellant. The learned Single Judge answered both the points in negative by assigning the following reasons: “The petitioner, as can be seen from the award, did not allege any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry. the departmental enquiry, In the Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the statements and evidence of the petitioner, passengers and officials of the APSRTC, held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority, considering the nature of the proved charges, imposed punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty. The Labour Court, on re- appreciation of the entire material on record, observed that on account of the attitude of the workman, the image of the Corporation has gone down in the public and he also caused loss to the Corporation to an extent of Rs.200/-. Therefore, the Labour Court, while observing that the punishment of deferment of annual increment of the workman for a period of two years with cumulative effect is reasonable where as the punishment for treating the suspension period as not on duty is not justified, confirmed the punishment of deferment of annual increment of the workman for a period of two years with cumulative effect and set aside the punishment of treating the suspension period as not on duty. Had the Labour Court held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved, then the petitioner would have been justified in contending that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct, but that is not the case. The Labour Court, having held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, has taken a lenient view and modified the punishment as aforesaid. The further contention of the petitioner is that against the same charges, the Criminal Court, vide orders passed in C.C.No. 414 of 1995, acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the charges levelled against him are not proved, and that the Labour Court has not considered the said order passed by the Criminal Court, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court be set aside to the extent it confirmed the punishment of deferment of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. I am unable to accept the said contention. A perusal of the Labour Court award clearly shows that the petitioner has not produced the copy of the criminal court judgment before the Labour Court. However, mere acquittal of the petitioner by the Criminal Court does not automatically give him the right to set aside the punishment awarded. Before the Labour Court the evidence led by the management was different from that led by the prosecution in the criminal case the approach and the objectives of the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. Therefore, it was open to the Labour Court to have come to an independent conclusion dehors the finding of the Criminal Court.” In our opinion, the appellant’s acquittal in Criminal Case No.414 of 1995 did not have the effect of wiping the allegation levelled against him and the competent authority did not commit any illegality by holding enquiry and passing the order of punishment. The nature of the criminal proceedings instituted in the court and the departmental enquiry are substantially different and acquittal in the criminal case cannot, by itself, be made the basis for nullifying the order of punishment issued by the employer after holding a regular enquiry unless it is shown that the substratum of the allegation constituting the subject matter of the criminal case and the departmental enquiry is the same and the evidence produced in the departmental enquiry is similar to the one adduced in the criminal case. This view of ours is based on the judgments of the Supreme Court in R.P.Kapur v. Union of India [1] , Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur v. Ramchandra G.Modak [2] , Anil Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Limited, Haldia [3] , Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya [4] , State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena [5] and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas [6] . The aforementioned judgments were considered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1076 of 2005 – Depot Manager, APSRTC, Parvathipuram and others v. D. Vykunta Rao and another decided on 16-6-2006, and it was held that the order of punishment passed by the competent authority after holding regular departmental enquiry cannot be annulled only on the ground that the delinquent was acquitted in the criminal case. In view of the above, we express our total agreement with the learned Single Judge that award dated 14-11-2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or error of law apparent on the face of the record, which could justify interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP.No.2860 of 2006 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. 28th December, 2006 ARS [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] AIR 1964 SC 787 AIR 1984 SC 626 JT 2005(8) SC 425 AIR 1997 SC 2232 (1996) 7 SCC 417 (2004) 7 SCC 442