IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25658 of 1999 Between: Garikipati Pullaiah S/o. Anjaneyulu, Presently at Repali Depot, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur II Depot, Guntur. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for all the connected records including the impugned award passed in I.D.No.219/96 dt.7.6.99 on the file of he Labour Court, Guntur and quash the same as illegal, Improper, unjust, arbitrary in so far as rejecting the back-wages to the petitioner herein and further direct the first respondent to pay the back- wages to he petitioner with all consequential benefits including seniority, monetary etc. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has questioned the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur, dated 7th June 1999, passed in I.D.No.219 of 1996 to the extent of not awarding backwages for the period for which he was out of service. 2. The petitioner was on duty on 08.05.1994 and was driving the bus bearing No.AEZ-5003 on the route from Narakonduru to Budampadu. In the transit, an accident had occurred, as the bus which was being driven by the petitioner had dashed against a scooterist. In the said accident, the scooterist and the pillion rider were died. Based on the preliminary report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing the following charge : “For having driven the vehicle No.AEZ 5003 of Guntur-2 Depot on 8.5.94 about 19-30 hours on route Tenali – Guntur (OMS) in a speedy manner with lack of anticipation and without taking proper precautionary measures, resulting which the bus dashed with a scooter coming in opposite direction crossing the front going lorry at 6 KM stone between Narakonduru and Budampadu while the vehicle was proceeding towards Guntur from Tenali, for which both the scooterist and pillion rider were died on the spot which constitutes misconduct under Regn.No.28(ix)(a) and (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” 3. When the explanation was filed by the petitioner denying the said charge, an Assistant Manager was appointed as an inquiry officer to inquire into the charge levelled against the petitioner. The inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry, has submitted his report by recording a finding that the petitioner was negligent in driving the bus on 08.05.1994. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and by giving further opportunity, an order of removal was passed by the disciplinary authority. The said order of removal was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority and further confirmed by the review authority. Thereafter, the petitioner has questioned the said orders of removal as confirmed by both the appellate and review authorities, by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.219 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court, by the impugned Award, has ordered for reinstatement of petitioner, but without any backwages, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that there were no valid reasons recorded by the Industrial Tribunal to deny backwages to the petitioner for the period for which he was out of service. It is submitted that as much as he was already acquitted in the criminal proceedings, it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to award backwages. 6. In this case, it is not in dispute that in the accident occurred, wherein the bus which was being driven by the petitioner has dashed against the scooterist, the scooterist as well as the pillion rider had died. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was acquitted of the charge in the criminal proceedings, but merely because there is an acquittal in criminal proceedings, no backwages can be awarded in all the cases, as a matter of course. The degree of proof which is required in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is altogether different. In the departmental proceedings, the preponderance of evidence is the criteria to prove the charge levelled against the delinquent employee, but whereas in the criminal proceedings, strict proof is required to record conviction beyond any reasonable doubt. Unless it is shown that in both the proceedings the charge is same and the evidence is also same, simply relying on the judgment of the criminal Court, backwages cannot be ordered to be paid in all the cases. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is also stated that the Corporation has paid Rs.2,26,000/- towards compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, who had died in the accident. The learned counsel for petitioner has not placed any material on record to show as to on what basis the findings are recorded by the inquiry officer in the departmental proceedings, and also not placed the copy of the judgment in the criminal proceedings, in the absence of which, it is not possible for this Court to order for payment of backwages merely on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal proceedings. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.219 of 1996. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th January 2009. ajr