IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 604 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 15595 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.604 OF 2003 O R D E R (Per Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This writ appeal is at the instance of the State Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2003 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.15595 of 2001, whereunder the writ petition was allowed at the instance of the respondent herein who sought for a writ of Mandamus seeking a direction for payment of consequential back wages in view of the reinstatement order dated 28.03.2001 passed by the first respondent in the writ petition. The facts in brief giving raise to these proceedings are that while the respondent was working as a driver, he had driven the RTC Bus bearing AP-10 Z 1403 on 28.02.1997 which was involved in a fatal accident. After a regular departmental enquiry, the respondent herein was removed from service as per the order dated 11.08.1997. The appeal preferred by the respondent herein was also rejected on 28.03.2001. Simultaneously, criminal proceedings had been initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 427 IPC and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, as per the judgment dated 27.10.2000 in C.C.No.56 pf 1997 acquitted the respondent herein. Therefore, taking advantage of the acquittal by the criminal Court and on the basis of the Circular dated 21.07.1995 issued by the appellants, the respondent by way of representation dated 25.11.2000 approached the appellants seeking review of the departmental penalty imposed on him. Accordingly, after considering the said representation, the authorities reinstated the respondent herein in service but no back wages were granted. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein filed the W.P. which was disposed of granting back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the Corporation filed the present writ appeal. The case of the appellants is that as per Clause-K of the Circular dated 21.07.1995, if the acquittal is on technical grounds like a witness not forthcoming or turning hostile or benefit of doubt is given to him, or where evidence given is contradictory during the course of trial etc., no reinstatement shall be considered but in the event of reinstatement in service, the driver shall be paid back wages. In the instant case, the criminal court acquitted the respondent herein on the ground of benefit of doubt, and therefore, the respondent herein is not entitled for reinstatement and back wages. The learned single Judge after considering the scope and ambit of the said Circular did not find favour with the objections raised by the appellants and disposed of the writ petition granting back wages to the respondent herein. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation reiterated the very same objection in this appeal as to the disqualification for entitlement of back wages in respect of such a situation as contemplated in the aforesaid Circular. In fact, on considering the aforesaid objections and also a reading of the circular, it shows that if the case falls in any of those situations, the respondent would not be entitled for reinstatement at all. Having given reinstatement to him giving a go-by to the parameters indicated in the circular, it is not open now for the Corporation to fall back on the very same circular or the grounds contemplated therein to say that the respondent herein is not entitled for back wages. The appellants did not challenge the order of reinstatement and in fact the respondent herein already joined in service, and therefore, we do not find any justification in this appeal now at this late hour. In fact, the appellants are estopped on facts also from raising such objections. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ----------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 4TH AUGUST, 2009 PGS / VGSR