Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A.P.S.R.T.C. And Others vs T. Venkatapathi on 4 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD39, 1999(1)ALT767
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
ORDER
A.S. Bhate, J
1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted for alleged offence of murder of his wife. The death of the wife of petitioner took place on 25th of February, 1996. The petitioner was working as Depot Controller at Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra Pradcsh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the 'R.T.C.'). A prosecution was initiated against the petitioner after registration of crime. In the meanwhile the department initiated departmental proceedings on the following charge:
"For having involved in a criminal case of alleged killing on 25-2-1996 which has resulted in framing criminal case against you as Crime No.30 of 1996 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by Muthyalareddypalli Police Station which amounts misconduct under Section 29(xxxi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963."
2. The criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in SC No.l of 1997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by judgment dated 8-8-1997. The said acquittal has become final. However, the disciplinary authority in the departmental enquiry, upon completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28-11-1996 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The same was dismissed. The review petition was also dismissed by the Regional Manager of the RTC. As a result, the petitioner filed the writ petition to challenge the order of his removal.
3. The learned single Judge held that the disciplinary authority was in error in holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in disciplinary proceedings in view of the judgment of the Court. The petitioner-delinquent was entitled to be cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and accordingly allowed the writ petition.
4. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the RTC has filed this writ appeal. We find no merit in the appeal inspite of the persuation of the learned Counsel for the appellant-RTC. We have already pointed out as to what charge was framed in the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. It has to be noted that the charge was not for (he substantive act of having caused death of the wife. The charge was only that petitioner was involved in a criminal case and the said involvement had resulted in framing of a criminal case for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in course of the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that death of his wife was result of his delinquency. It is argued that in view of this admission of the petitioner the disciplinary authority was justified in accepting the same and Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. We fail to understand as to how the statement of petitioner was relevant in the instant case. The charge was only for involvement in a criminal case resulting in instituting of a criminal case against the petitioner. As soon as the criminal case itself was found to be untenable in Court of law, the very basis of the charge was knocked out. The charge should have been quashed as and when the criminal case ended in acquittal. Involvement in a criminal case which was not tenable in Court of law can hardly amount to any delinquency. It cannot be disputed that the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold disciplinary enquiry on the same charge as is before a Criminal Court because the scope of disciplinary enquiry and criminal trial is different. But where the charge in the disciplinary enquiry is necessarily dependent on the result of the criminal case if the criminal case itself ends in favour of the delinquent, the charge in the disciplinary enquiry will become unsustainable one. In the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the charge framed against the petitioner and having regard to the result of the criminal case, we have no manner of doubt that the learned single Judge was right in allowing the petitioner's claim.
5. No other point was urged. The writ appeal is dismissed.