The High Court · 2025

Order

This u,rit petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 2O.10.2005 passed b1' the Industrial Tribuna-l-cum Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District (for short "the Labour Court") in I.D.No.67 of 2OO4. 2- Heard Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioncr zrnd Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel lor TGSRTC.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner \r'as appointed as a Conductor in the 1"' respondent's office on 27.02.1984 and his services were utilized in various categories from 1987 to 1990 and was later posted as System Supervisor in the Computer Section in the year 1990 and since then he has been discharging his duties regularly. (b) While so, on 13.04.2002, the petitioner fell sick and joined duty on 16.04.2002 duly submitting a Medical Certificate. On the allegations made by the checking officials of the Regional Enforcement Squad, ?.

Karimnagar, against the conductor one Sri B.B.Rao of Karirnnagar Depot, who is said to have possessed a ticket block No.O36/582800 of Rs.60/- t,clor-rging to Karimnagar-ll Depot, tl-re respondent lodgr:rl a complaint bcfore the Police Station. I-Town, Karimnagar, alleging thelt ol three ticket blocks u.,orth Rs. l8,OOo/ Basecl on the said complaint, C.C.No. l94 ol 2002 ri'as registered against the petitioner and he \ /as placed under suspension and issued charge-sheet datc'd 18.O4.2OO2 lraming the four charges. Charqe No. 1: I-or hauing comnitted irLto Theft of 7-i:ket Blocks beaing Nos. of Rs.60/- 036/5827OO, 036/5328OO and 016/ 5829OO E. Pertaining to Karinznagar-Il Depot utith an intentiort to defraud the reuenues of ttLe Corpor,ttion, uthile workbtg as a System Superuisor, in KRMR ll-[.)'zpot, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg 28(x) o/',l.P.S.R.LC. (CC & A) Reg. 1967. Charqe No.2: For hauing generated the Wag Bill rmd hauing sold-out the Ticket Block in conniuonce tuith tlrc con.ductor, Sn B.ts. Rao E 102368, of KRMR-ONE Depot in the Cornprier of Kaimnagar- Depot, and fed 7'i:ke1 Blocks bearirt.g No. as utere rnentiorrcd in Charge No.1, uorth of Rs.6O,/- uith an intention to misappropiate the leqitimate Reuenue of the Corporation which constih es senous misconduct in tenns of Reg. 28(iii) of A.P.S.R.'|'.C. Conduct Reg. 1963 read uith Reg.9 under Note (2) iii & iu) of A.P.S.R.r.C. Emplogees (CC & A) Reg. 1967. Clta e No.3: ,h I J For hauing issued the generated Way Bill bearing No.0311/05102938, dt: 8-4-2OO2, from Computer of Kaimnagar II Dept., dttLy fed the Ticket Block No.036/5B2BO0 wotlh of Rs.6O/- in conniuance uith Sri B.B. Rao, E 102368 Conductor/KARIMNAGAR ONE Depot, uthile he utas perfonning Boreuell to Kaimnagar on 12.4.2002, and the seme was detected bA R.E.S/ KRMR ort 12.4.2OO2, tuith fraudulent Moto whtch constitutes misconduct irt terlns oJ Re91.28 (iil of A.P.S.R.'\.C. Dmplogees' Cc;nduct Reg. 1963, read tuith Regd. 9 Under Note (2) (xi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employee.s C.C. & A Reg. 1967. Chorqe No.4: " For hauhtg absconded from Aour duties, u.e.f. 13.4.2002 since the incident took place and produced Medical certifi.cate on 16.4.2OO2, to couen)p gour absence tuhich constitutes trisconduct ir tenrts of Reg. 28 of (xxuii) of A.P. S.R. ?. C. Emplogee s' (conrluct) Reg. 1 9 63. (.) The petitioner slrbmitted explanation to the said charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered a detailed enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, conducted an ex-parte enquiry afld submitted the findings holding that thc charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the respondents have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner o11

20.12.2OO2. The petitioner has submitted an explanation to the said show-cause notice. The petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.194 of 2OO2 by judgment, dated 3O.O7.2OO3 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First 4 Class, Spe<:ial Mobile Court, Karimnagar. Subsequently, the respondents have passed the proceedings dated

10.O1.20O3 imposing the punishment of -emoval lrom servlct'. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner- has filed an zrppeal bclore the 2"d respondent and the sarne \(ras re.jectecl through proceedings dated 20.O2.2OO4. Questioning the said proceedings, the pt:titioner filed I.D.No.67 ol 2OO4 before the 3'd respondent and the same u'as disrrrissed on 2O.LO.2OO5. Challenging the order dated 20. 10.2005, the present writ petition is lilecl 4 . Lea rned counsel appearing for the petitioner submils that though the petitioner was appointed as :r Conductor i-ris scr-vices have been utilized irr Computcrs. The disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordered a detailed enquiry. The enquiry olhcer r:onducted an ex-parle r:nquiry, which is not fair and l)roper. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are lalse and baseless.

5. l,ezrrned counsel appearing lor the petitioner further strbmits that the respondent himself lodged :l 5 complaint against the petitioner and he himself acted as a disciplinary authority L1] respect of the very szune aliegations, which is violative of the principles of natural l ustrce

6. Learned counsel a1;pearing lor Lhe petitioner further submits that as per the statement of B.B.Rao, the petitioner is not responsible for the thelt of ticket blocks. The petitioner is not a proper person to haldover the ticket blocks to the Conductor and the concerned Assistant Deport Clerk would allot the same to the Conductors. There is no relation between Karimnagar-l ald II Depots arrd the petitioner is no way concerned with the issuance of way bills to the Conductors.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, erroneously passed the order, dated 10.01.2003, removing the petitioner from service.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of cases held that consequent 6 upon acquiltal in a criminal case, the empkryee is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential lrr:nefits, if the charges ar() one and the same in the departmental cnquirv as rvell as in thc crimina-l case. Irr the preser-rt case , the charges mentioned in the Charge N'lemo lor the clepartme:rtirl enquiry and the charges mentioned in thc criminai case are onc and the same and though the petitioner \\ra s acquitted in C.C.No. 194 c'f 2002. the appellate arrthorit-y as well as the Tribunal erroneously confirmed llre order passed by the disciplinar-.r authority.

9. Le:rrned counsel appearing lor the petitioner lurther subrnits that appropriate orders be passed in the u,rit petition by setting aside the order in I.D.No.67 o1' 2004, datcci 20. 10.2005 and allow the writ tx'tition.

10. Res;pondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a colutter aflidavit stating as lbliows : a) T['rc petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract bzisis on 27.O2.19a4 in the respondent Corporation. On similar grounds of cas]'r and ticket irregr-rlaril ies, earlier the following punishments wc:re imposed on the pctitioner. 1 I. Censured 2. Annuql increments deferred - 2 times 2 times (b) At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was norking at Karimnagar-11 Depot. As the petitioner possesscd soltware skills, his services '*,ere being utilized as Systcm Supervisor. The petitioneruvas the sole incharge of Depot Computer System for performing the follou,ing duties :- "a) 'l'o Boot (stort) the sAstem and shut doutn the sgstem after completion of Trafftc Operations. b) To generate all the reuenue reports Dailg / Monthlg peftaining to traffic (Eamings) Section. c) 'l'o safe guard the sAstem from meddling bg an unscrupulous elements and preuent fraudulent practices bg maittaining secret pass u.tord. d) To rectify the operational problems in the system. e) To ensure proper feedittg of ticket stock into the computer receiued from stores. fl To ensure issue of Wag Bills to the Conductors and receiue the Way Bills along with cash. g) To take back up all the data as precautionary measure to restore the same in tte euent of break downs. h) To create mdster data for tlLe netu Conductors/ Diuers and new buses." S (.) Taking advantage of his position, the petitionei genr:rated duplicate way bills and got the tickets solc1 through a conductor by name Sri B.B.Rao and rnis;rppropriated the legitimate revonue of the rr:sponclen t Corporation. (d) -lhe total ticket stock available in the depot r.i,ill bc ft'r'd in the computer and the syste:n permits to rclease thc blocks serially. Every day, the in charge of the ticket stock gives the requisite stock to the Assistzrnt Depot Clerks, u,ho are entrusted with the duty ol giving blocks to the Conductors. The Assistant [)epot Clerks give the rcquisite ticket blocks to the Conductors, alter entering irr the Computer, the details such as Conductor's Staff No., Tray No, serial nunrbers of the blocks issued ald number of blocks issueci. The Assistant Depot Cierks generate a way bill from the computer u'1th all the details and give to the Conductors. The Condr,rctor should not possess any blocks in his truy-, other thal tl-re blocks mentioned in the way bill. (.) The Conductor after performing his duty has to vvrite in the way bill, the closing numbers of all the 9 ticket blocks and has to remit the amount accordingiv. Every day, a separate statcment by name MTD 4/R will be generated showing the details of all the blocks issued to the Conductors- (0 On 15.03.2O02, the pctitioner obtained three blocks of Rs.6O/ denomination u,ith numbers 036/582700, 03615828O0 and 036/582900 from the ticket stock incharge, on the pretext of har-rding over to the Conductors. Alter obtaining the blocks from the stock inchargc, the petitioner with his soltware skills meddled with the system and ensured that those blocks are not released as per their serial number ald kept them AS "Discrepancy blocks" i.e.. "omitted blocks". Because ol improper shut down of the system or because of the wrong procedure adopted while generating the w'ay bills, the blocks get omitted from the stock and the statement of MTD 4/R clearly shows the blocks omitted from the stock for that day. The system supervisor has to enter those blocks into the system again so that they are added to the stock. 10 (g) 'lhe petitioner, who u,as working as System Supervisor. obtained three blocks of Rs. 60 I- denominartion lrom the incharge of the ticket stock :rnd made th,:nr to bc shown as "omitted blocks" and avoideci re -cntering of such blocks in the system. The petitioncr halded or'cr such blocks to Sri B.B.Rao, Conductor of I{arimnag;ar I clepot by generating a duplic:ate rn ay bill Sri B.Ei. Rno, rvho was a Conductor ol Karimnagar-l depot obtained w,ir.y l>ill lrom Karimnagar I depot showing the details oi irll tl're blocks issued from thc depot. 'lhc petitioner generated duplicate u,ay bill in the name of Sri B.B.Rao u,ith details of all biocks issued lrom I(arimnag,ar'-l clepot and by adding the blocks of Rs. 60/- denomination of Karimnagar II depot. Sri B.B. Rao performecl the duty with the duplicate wav bill and sold out Rs. 50 /- denomination blocks. The Conductor after performirrg the duty paid back the ainount at Karimnasar I depot as per the way bill genr:rated at that depot ancl rhus avoided paying the amount realized by the sale ol Rs. 60/- dendmination blocks obtained from the KarimniLgar II depot with the hetp of the petitioner. 11 (h) In the sarne manner, two blocks of Rs.6O/ denornination were sold out by the petitioner in coilusion u,ith Sri B.B. Rao. Even if the check is exercised it is very dillicult lor the checking squad to detect such fraud since all the blocks in the trav will be shown in the wav bill. (i) On 8.4.2002, Sri V.K.Reddy, the Assistant Depot Cierk, observed that the petitioner was generating a wav bill in the name of Sri B.B. Rao. who was a Conductor of Karimnagar 1 depot, and he reported tl're matter to the Senior Tralfic Inspector. The Senior Traffic Inspector obtained a print out of the way bill prepared by the petitioner and u/ent to Karimnagar- 1 depot and verified rvith the n'ay bill generated in the name of Sri B.B. Rao, at that depot. On verification, it was lound that the way bill generated at Karimnagar II depot contained one block of Rs. 60/- denomination with number 036 |5B2BO0. On verification, it was also folrnd that MTD 4/R generated on 15.3.2OO2 did not contain the list of the blocks omitted from the stock. Thus, the petitioner taking advantage of his position generated 3 1-2 MTD 4/ll on 15.3.2OO2 and concealed the sheet which contains l.hc list of biocks omitted lrom the stock. U) On 11.4.2OO2, the Senior Tralfrc Inspector inlormed about thc lraud to the inchargc ol'thc regional checking squad and requested to check thc bus, in which Sri B.B.Rao is performing the duty. .A,ct:ordingly, the checkirrg scluad checked the bus on |2.O'I.2OO2 while Sri B.B. Rao was conducting the bus bearinil No.7il99 on the route Boruvalli to Karimnagar. At the tirle of check, it u,as founcl t1-rat Sri B.B. Rao issued to the passengers, the tickets of Rs. 60/- denomination pertaining to the block number 036/582800, which is missing frorn Karimnagar II depot. 'lhe checking officials confiscated the Way Bill, Statistical Return and the tickets issued by Sri B.B. Rao, and issued lresh Statistica,l Return (S.R.) and Xerox copy of Way Bill to him. (k) The checking officiais after cornpleting the formalitiers issued a charge memo bearing Nc.A0/346569, 57O, 57 1, dated 12.4.2OO2, to Sri B.B. Rao. r.r,,ho offered his spot cxplanation admitting the irregulanties. 13 0) Sri B.B.Rao, who was caught by the squad on I2.4.2OO2, while selling the tickcts of Rs. 60 I - denomination unauthorisedly, committed suicide by consuming poison in the late hours of 12.4.2002. The petitioner n,as lound absconding from his duties lrom

13.O4.2OO2 i.c., a da-y after the fraud was detected. Thc petitioner scnt a Sick Certificate on 16.O4.2OO2 i.e., after 48 hours ol his absenting for his duties. The Senior Traffic h-rspector, Karimnagar-ll depot submitted his report dated 18.04.2OO2 to the respondent. Based on the allegations made against the petitioner, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order, dated la.O4.2OO2 and issued a charge sheet framing four charges against the petitioner. (m) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 1.6.2002. The respondent was not convinced r,r'ith the explanation and, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, ordered a domestic enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, duly nominating the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Regional Manager's Office, Karimnagar, as the Enquiry Officer, 1,4 under intinration to the pctitioner. The Ertquiry Officer addressecl several enquiry intimations to the petitioner through RPAD, requesting him to attend tl-re enquiry Horvever. the petitioner failcd to attend the t':lquirv. An ex parte enquiry was conduc[ed ir-rto the chrrrges lramed against tlre petitioner. Thc cnquiry of{icer recorded the statemenl.s of Sri C.P. Rao, Depot Clerk (F)arnings); Sri A.V. Rerldl , Assistalt Depot Clerk; Sri .lz,rgadeshrvar, Squad Incharge, RES/Karimnagar; Sri C.N4. Recldy, TII; Sri A.R. Recldy, A.D.C.; Sri P.H. Rao, Supenntendr:nt (T); and Sri R.N. Rao, Assistant Manager (1). l3ased on the oral an<l documentary evidence, the enquiry officer recorded his findings and transmitted th: filc to the respond€:l1t (n) The respondent, based on the enquiry: report ald other evidence available on record. carrc to the conclusi<;n that the cheLrges lramcd against lhc pctitioner \\rere proved. The respondent addressed a letter dated ll.1l.2oo2 to the petitioner by enclosing the enquiry proceedir-rgs and enquiry report, reqr-resting lLim to submit his objections. The petitioner submitted his explanation 15 on O2.12.2OO2. The respondent, not convinced with the explanation olfered by the petitioner, once again perused the entirc records and carne to the provisional conclusion that the pr-rnishment of removal lrom service was fit and proper. Accordingly, a show cause notice, dated

20.12.2OO2, \r/as sent to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanalion as to rn,hy the proposed penalty should not be imposcd on him. The petitioner, having acknowledged the receipt of the shorv cause notice of removal, failed to submit his explalation. The respondent once again reviewed the entirc records availablc and came to the finerl conclusion and passed the proceedings dated 10.01.2003 removing tl're petitioner from service. (o) Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2"a respondent, which was considered and rejected on merits through proceedings dated 2O.O2.2OO4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner hled I.D.No.67 /2004 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 20.10.2005. (p) The acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. i6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a numbcr r>f cases held that everr alter the acquittal of the delinquent employee, the managcment is at liberty to take departtnentai action against the employee as per rules. In the present case, as held by thr,' Labour Court. the rcspond<'nt conduct.e'd a valid enquiry, duly following the rules ar.rd principles of natural justice, giving ample opportunitl, to the petitioner at every stage. 1 1. Lerlrned Standing Counsel appczrring lor the responclenls submits that the petitioner, l-iztving rccei',.ed the enquin, ca,ll letters dated 2.9.2OO2 ard 17.9.2OO2. failed to attcnd the enquiry. As rightly poir-rled out by thc Labour Court, the petitioner does not deserle an,v sympathetic consideration. On similar grounds of cash and ticket irregularities, earlier the pr:titioner \\: S punished trvice.

12. Learned Standing Counsel appeirring for- the respondenrs further submits that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing on the departmr-'ntal proceedings. The respondr: -rt conducted enquiry du l-y following the rules ald princiSrles of natural 7l justice, giving ample opportunity to the petitioner. The awarrd of the Labour Court is well-considered and well- reasoned and does not warraxt anv interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

13. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the pctitioncr filed W.P.M.P.No.46467 of 2O13, stating that the sole petitioner had passed away on O8.O7.2013 and sought permission to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased petitioner. The said application was allowed on 29.07.2022, pursuant to r.r,hich, the legai representative of the dcceased petilioner was brought on record as the 2',d petitioner

14. In the instalt case, since the petitioner expired on

08.07.2013 during pendency of this writ petitior-r, the question of reinstatement of the deceased petitioner does not arise. Therefore, this Court shall confine its examination to the issue ol whether the respcndent authorities adhered to the due procedure prescribed by law while removing the deceased petitioner lrom service. 18

15. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent authorities lodged a complaint against the petitionel at Karimnagar (l) Torrn Police Station on 17.04.2002, which r.r,as markcci as trx.P-1 in C.C.No. 194 of ')002 on the lilc ol the J.M.F.C., Karimnagar. Consequetrt thereto, thc pctitioner lr.as placed under suspension on 18.04.2002 'l'he authcirities alleged that the petitioner u,:rs invoived in the thelt of three ticket blocks valued at Rs. 18.0OOi -. based on u,hich a criminal case was regist-ered against tire petitioner and the same was numberetl as C.C.Nr 194 of 2OO2.

16. Simultaneously, the respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings and framed ftrur charges against the petitioner. While both the criminal and departmental proceedings were pending, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 11.O9.2OO2 seeking postponement of the departmental enqui:ry until thc conclusion of the criminal proceedings. Hou',:ver, rvithout considering the petitioner's request, thr: respondcnt authorities proceeded with the departmental enquiry. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer, through letter No 19 l/8O2(t)/2OO2-KRII, directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 30.1O.2O02. Despite this, the Enquiry Ofticer submitted the enquiry report on 25.10.2002 itself

17. The conduct of the rcspondent authorities clearly demonstrates that a proper and reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner, despite his acquittal in the corresponding crimina-l case. The petitioner submits tl-rat the witnesses examincd in the domestic er-rquiry were the sarne as those examined in C.C.No.194 ol 2OO2 before the J.M.F.C., Karimnagar. The petitioner tl,as acquitted in the said crimir-ral case i.e., C.C.No.194 ol 20O2 by judgment dated 30.07.2003.

18. Despite disclosing the acquittai in thc appeal liled against the removal order, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 20.O2.2OO4 as time-barred, without considering the acquittal of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner also preferred I.D.No.67 of 2OO4, which was dismissed on 20.10.2005, without proper appreciation of the evidence and 1aw. 20

19. The issue for consideration in this case is u'hether the removal order passed by the authorities is legall,v sustainablt-', r,"'hen the petitioner was ircquitted criminal casc i.e., C.C.No.194 of 2OO2 and rvhen botl-r thc departmcr-rta1 and criminal proceedings ll'<:rc basecl on the same set of facts and witnesses.

20. In support of his contentions, learnerl counsel lor the petitioner relied upon the judgment of tl're Apex Court in G.M.TANK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT A,\D ANO'I'L{ER (Appeal (Civil) No.2582 of 2006) dated 10.05 2006. u.herein the Apex Court observed as follows "hr the irctant case, the appellant joined the respondent in the ge:ar 1953. He was suspended from seruice <tt 8.2.1979 and got subsistence allouance of t"s.700/ p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary. On 15.1O.1982 dismissal order utas passed. The appellant has put in 26 !/ears of seruice u,ith the respondent i.e. from 1 953- 1 979- The appellctrtr tuould now superannuate in February, 1986. On the brtsis of the same charges and the euidence, tle Deparlrnent passed ant order of dismissal on21.1O.1982 u.thereos tle Crimtnal Court acquitted him on 30. 1.2002. Hotueuer. as the Criminal Coury acquitted the appellant on 30. 1.20O2 and until such acquitta| there was no reasotl or ground to hole the desmissal to be enoneous, ang relieJ' monetailg can be onlg w.e.f. 30.1.2OO2. But bg thert, the appellant had retired, therefore, ue, deem it 21, proper to set aside the order of disrnissal u;ithout back wages. The appellant utould be entitled to pension. For tlrc foregoing reasons, LDe set aside the judgment and order dated 28.1.2002 passed bg the leanted single Judge in Special Ciuil appln. No. 948 of 1983 as affinned bg the Diuision Bench in L.I'-A. No. 1085 of 20O2 and allotu this appeal. Howeuer, there shall be no order as to costs. "

21. Under the similar set of facts in RAMLAL Vs. S'|ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND O?HERS (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 20231 dated 04.12.2023, thc Apex Court observed as follows :- 27 . We are additionallg satisfied that in tlrc- teeth of the jindirtg of the appellate Judge, the disciplinctry proceedirtgs and the orders passed thereon cartnot be alloued to stand. The charges Luere not just similar but identical and the euidence, irifnesses and ciratmsta nces were dll the same. Ihis is a cose tultere in exercise of our di.scretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and tLte oppellote authoitA as allouing ttem to stand will be unjus| unfair and oppressiue. This case is uery similar to tle situation that arose in G.M.Tank (supra).

22. In the present case, both the criminal and departmental proceedings arise from :t similar set of facts, and the witnesses are also common. However, the 22 respondent authorities have not properly crtnsidered the case of th r-' petitioner.

23. A pcrr-rsal of the order in the l.D. revr:als that thc Labour Court obscrved that the petitioner did not makc an.y elfort t() stav the departmentai procec<lings during the pendcnr'-v of the criminal case. Moreover, thc r.l'rit petition filccl b1'the petitioner challenging the shou'-cause notice rvas tlismissed by this Court. While dismissing thc I.D., the Lal;our Court failed to take into consideration the said facts. u,hich a-re not legally admissible. 21-. Even, if the petitioner did not make efforts to obtain a s1a\r of the departmental proceedings, the Labour Coult cannot dismiss the I.D. on that ground a1one, nor ()n the ground that the writ petition against the shou''r':ruse notice was dismissed. Such reasoning is not legalh, srrstainable because, generally, w-hen the High Court dismisses a nrit petition challenging il shor,r,-cause notice, it mr:rely directs the petitioner to ;rpproach the Court aftcr: r,'ompletion of the enquiry and the passing of a linal or-<1cr. In the said I.D., the Labour Court aiso obserwed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly heid 23 that even after acquittal of the delinquent empioyee by the criminal Court, the Managernent is at libcrty to take dcpartmental action against the emplo.yee, after conclucting a domestic enquily. '25. Ir-r the sirnilar circumstances, there exists a calena ol judgments by the Honble Supreme Court holding that u'herc departmenta,l and criminal proccedings arise out of the same set of facts, and the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges, the authorities cannot, u,'ithout considering the acquittal, proceed to punish the petitioner on the same set of facts.

26. The Labour Court, without due consideration of the petitioner's acquittal in the present case, erroneously dismisscd the ID. confirming the order passcd by the disciplinary authorit5r. Therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Col-lrt's Au,ard are liable to be set aside.

27. Tire removal order dated 1O.01.2003, passed by the disciplinary authority, and the Award dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. The )4 respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the cleceased petitioner and if appropriate, irnpose a lesser penalt-r' tiran removal from service ald pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1arv, within a period of three rlrontl.r s i'rorn the date of receipt of a copv of this order Due to the deatir of the sole petitione'r, his legal representative i.e., 2"d petitioner would get the benefits, il she is othcru,ise eligible. Based on the above order arnd pursua r1t to such reconsideration, if the deceased petitior-rer u.ould have become entitled to an-r, benefits, the same shall be considered and granted to the second petitioner. u,ho is thc wile of the decease,d employee, within a periorl of three months thereafter. 2a. With the above direction, the r,r'rit petition 1S disposcd of. No order as to costs. [)endiirg miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY' To, 1 Z 3 The Depot l/anager, APSRTC, Karimnagar De pot- The Divisron;:l N4anager, APSRTC, Karimnagar' The Chairman, lndustrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour' Karimnagar District. D . SRINIVASA REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR ION OFFICE K . Karimnagar District rimnagar District. Court, Godavari Khani,

4. One CC to SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO, Advocate TOPUCI 5 One CC to SRI N.CHANDRASEKHAR, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana al Hyderabad [OUT] /

7. Two CD Copies BSR \+ BS HIGH COI.JRT DATED: 2911012025 CC TODAY ,-27'::=>.- , ',\-- D r^.i F ^-lt L O Nt\ 2['6 .'... ,:'-,r: a_" ;i i.'r/ ',7 ORDER WP.No.4801 of 2006 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1o .d- fr-,