IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.10105 OF 2009 Salim Tajuddin Mullani ...Petitioner Vs. Divisional Traffic Officer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ... Respondents --- Shri Dilip Bodake for Petitioner ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 4TH MAY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order 30.9.2005 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.7 of 1995 and the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, confirming the said judgment of the Labour Court by its order dated 21.7.2008. 3. Brief facts are as under. The Petitioner was in the employment of the Respondent Corporation as a driver till his services were terminated. A chargesheet was served on the Petitioner and it was alleged in the said chargesheet that he was driving his bus in rash and negligent manner and as a result, one person died on the spot and other two were seriously injured. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. The explanation furnished by the Petitioner were found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, he was dismissed from the services by an order dated 8.2.1995. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a complaint in the Labour Court being Complaint (ULP) No.7 of 1995. The said complaint was dismissed and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were confirmed by the Labour Court. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred revision application before the Industrial Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, firstly submitted that though the criminal case which was filed against the Petitioner was still pending, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the enquiry, and, therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings itself were illegal and the order of the Labour Court was liable to be set aside on that ground. He, secondly, submitted that the Petitioner herein was not responsible for the death of one pedestrian and the injury caused to the other two pedestrians since they had attempted to cross the road and the Petitioner was not in a position to see them as they directly came on the road from behind a truck which was parked on the other side. He, therefore, submitted that the explanation which was offered by the Petitioner was satisfactory and should have been accepted by the Enquiry Officer and both the Courts below. 5. I have perused the order passed by the Labour Court and also the Industrial Court. In my view, merely because criminal case was pending in the Criminal Court against the present Petitioner under section 304 A on account of his rash and negligent driving, that does not preclude the Enquiry Officer from proceeding with the domestic enquiry. It is quite well settled position in law that merely because a criminal case is pending in the Criminal Court, domestic enquiry need not be stayed as the parameters and burden of proof in both these proceedings is different. So far as, the second submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, the finding recorded by the Enquiry officer has been confirmed by the Labour Court and by the Industrial Court. Both the Courts have given cogent reasons for upholding the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts below. 6. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.