THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26112 of 2001 Date: 25.11.2010 Between : Pallapu Venkataiah .… Petitioner and The Secretary, A.P.S.W.Residential Educational Institutions Society, Telugu Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26112 of 2001 ORDER : Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings Pr.Rc.No.Z-I/4272/97, dated 8.10.1999, of the 1st respondent, by which he awarded a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect to the petitioner, and also the consequential proceedings Rc.No.Zone-IV/4272/97, dated 6.9.2000, of the 1st respondent in not regularising his entire period of absence, as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner earlier worked as a Watchman in A.P. Social Welfare Residential School and he was placed under suspension by order, dated 13.12.1996, on certain charges of mis- behaviour and theft. Subsequently, departmental enquiry was taken up and the 1st respondent by his proceedings, dated 8.10.1999, after calling for the explanation of the petitioner, imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It should also be noted here that the 1st respondent in his proceedings, dated 6.9.2000, took up the issue of absence of the petitioner for a period of 1038 days and adjusted the said absence for certain periods, taking into account earned leave, half pay leave and leave on loss of pay. The petitioner is assailing the aforesaid orders on the ground that the criminal case initiated against him pertaining to the charge of theft ended in acquittal and so far as the other charge relating to mis-behaviour is concerned, he was not given proper opportunity to put-forth his case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner elaborated his arguments on the above two contentions of the petitioner. 5. There is no force in either of the contentions. It may be noted that so far as the contention that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner is concerned, the impugned proceedings, dated 8.10.1999, itself shows that the petitioner was given a show cause notice, dated 11.7.1999, and explanation was called for and the petitioner also submitted his explanation, dated 25.8.1999. Having regard to the penalty imposed, it is not necessary to go into this aspect in detail, as this Court has to see only whether proper opportunity is given or not and as it cannot go into the merits of the matter. 6. Coming to the other contention relating to acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, it is found from the impugned order itself that the amount, which was lost by the Headmaster, was recovered from the petitioner by the police. Added to this, there is another charge of mis-behaviour also. It is well settled now that mere acquittal in criminal case is not a ground for dropping the disciplinary proceedings in each and every case, unless facts are identical in both. The record in criminal case is not placed before the Court to show that facts are identical in both. 7. In the circumstances of the case, both the impugned orders show that the disciplinary proceedings stand on an independent footing and the mere acquittal in criminal case is not a ground to quash the same. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR 25.11.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.26112 of 2001 25.11.2010 (Msr)