THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.21591 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was working as Helper in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in Jaggayyapet Depot and while so, on the ground that he misbehaved with a minor girl, a criminal case was registered on the ﬁle of Police Station Jaggayyapet and he was arrested on 28.4.1997 and later released on bail. The 3rd respondent – Depot Manager, Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Krishna District, suspended the petitioner on 26.5.1997. The case against the petitioner in S.C.No.263/1997 for the said charge was tried by the court of III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and ended by way of conviction. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally, and based on the report of the enquiry oﬃcer ﬁnding the petitioner guilty, the 3 rd respondent by proceedings No.E1/498(3)/97-IBM dated 12.12.1997 removed the petitioner from service and the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent – Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Regional Manager’s Oﬃcer, was rejected on 16.6.1998. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner preferred appeal on the ﬁle of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Machilipatnam in Criminal Appeal No.80/1998 and the appeal was allowed on 5.2.2002 and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Hence, the petitioner ﬁled a review to the 1st respondent – Regional Manager along with copy of judgment acquitting him, but the review was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring the above facts further submitted that the charge leveled against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and before the criminal court was one and the same and when the criminal court acquitted the petitioner, the 1st respondent – Regional Manager ought to have allowed the review petition ﬁled by the petitioner and reinstated the petitioner into service. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY v. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD. [1] He further submitted that the 1st respondent without adverting to the judgment of the criminal court in acquitting the petitioner, rejected the review and hence the same requires to be interfered with. 4. On behalf of the respondent – Corporation, no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that it is well settled that acquittal in a criminal case will not automatically entitle for reinstatement. He submitted that in the departmental enquiry, the charge against the petitioner was proved and, therefore, the petitioner was removed and in the appeal and in the review considering the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer, the authorities rejected the case of the petitioner for reinstatement and the same does not warrant any interference and, therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The charge against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is as under: “For having misbehaved with Kum.Parimala Jyothi, aged 13 years, a minor girl, daughter of Sri N.Venkateswarlu (Driver of APSRTC Bus Depot, Jaggaiahpet) who is a bona ﬁde passenger covered by a valid Bus Pass by laying your hands on her chest by sitting besides her between 23.45 hrs. to 00.45 hrs. while traveling on Bus No.AP 10Z 921 of JPT Depot on route Vijayawada to Jaggaiahpet on 23/24-4-97 which is an act of misbehavior towards a woman passenger and constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963”. 6. From the above, the charge against the petitioner is misbehavior against a minor girl, which constitutes misbehavior towards a woman passenger under Reg.28(xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. The petitioner was tried for the very same oﬀence before the criminal court and in Criminal Appeal No.80/1998 dated 5.2.2002 he was acquitted of the charge by the court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Krishna at Machilipatnam. The Apex court in the decision reported in CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY v. BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD (1 supra) held that where Departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical set of facts and evidence, the order of dismissal already passed before the decision of the criminal case is liable to be set aside. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under: “34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts namely, ‘the raid conducted at the appellant’s residence and recovery of incriminating articles there from. The ﬁndings recorded by the Inquiry Oﬃcer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Oﬃcers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had eﬀected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Oﬃcer and the Inquiry Oﬃcer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the ﬁnding that the ‘raid and recovery’ at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the ﬁnding recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand. 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of diﬀerence, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.” 7. From the above judgment it is clear that when the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were based on identical set of facts and same witnesses were examined in the criminal court and where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the ﬁnding that the charge is not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the ﬁnding recorded at the departmental proceedings. In the present case, as already noted above, the charge against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is one and the same. But a perusal of the proceedings dated 29.8.2001 passed by the 1st respondent in the review petition, there is no reference of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case and the circumstances for refusing to exercise the jurisdiction under review. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. 8. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, without being inﬂuenced by the earlier order and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to above direction. No costs. AVS ------------------------------ 15—09—2008 [1] AIR 1999 SC 1416