IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20510 of 1999 Between: M. Dashrath, S/o. Yellaiah, R/o. 13-121, Margadarshi Colony, R.K.Puram 'X' Roads, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hon'ble Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer,Chandravihar Building, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, City Region, J.B.S., Picket, Secunderabad. 3 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Picket Depot, Secunderabad. .....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 call for the records from the 1st respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Award passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.93 of 1996, dated 20-6-1997, published on 27-8-97, in so far as denying back wages to the petitioner as illegal, unjust and contrary to law; and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20510 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation), aggrieved by the award in I.D.No.93 of 1996 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad to the extent of refusal of back wages. He was appointed in the year 1991 as Driver. While he was driving the bus bearing No.AAZ-9752 on route No.1015 from Nampally to Dilsukhnagar, on 02-02-1994 at about 18.30 hours, the said bus met with fatal accident with a scooter, which was coming in opposite direction, which resulted in death of a boy aged about 8 years, who was the pillion rider of the scooter. A case in Crime No.458 of 1994 was registered for the alleged offence under Section 304 IPC. Departmental proceedings were initiated attributing negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle and causing accident. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, which resulted in the accident and on the findings recorded by him, the petitioner was removed from service by order, dated 20-07-1995. The said order of removal was questioned by filing an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal, while recording a finding that though he was acquitted of the charges of the criminal proceedings, there was also negligence on the part of the petitioner, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, without back wages. The Tribunal further declared that the petitioner is entitled to the increments for the period for which he is out of employment. In this writ petition, it is argued by Sri Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was already acquitted of the charges in the criminal proceedings, denial of back wages is illegal. The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that by virtue of the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, he is not entitled for such benefit in departmental proceedings automatically. So far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, they depend on strict rule of evidence, whereas in departmental proceedings, probability is the criterion to hold whether the delinquent employee is responsible for the charge or not. In the case on hand, even the Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the department was valid. In that view of the matter and also in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was also negligence on the part of the petitioner, and it has exercised discretionary powers contemplated under Section 11-A of the Act, I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal in denying the back wages. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 20-08-2008 KLP