THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.250 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited against the order of the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.19006 of 2003 dated 08.02.2011, whereby the learned Single Judge, while setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as also appellate authority, directed the Corporation to consider the case of the respondent in the light of the acquittal recorded in C.C.No.303 of 1996 dated 31.08.2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District as confirmed in the appeal preferred by the State in Crl.A.No.2207 of 2004 dated 01.02.2011. While the respondent herein was working at MLS point Yacharam, a criminal case was booked as also proceedings dated 25.11.1995, under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), were initiated by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District for illegal transportation of three quintals of subsidy rice meant for distribution under the Public Distribution System. The respondent was issued a memo dated 30.03.1996 asking him to submit his explanation but he failed to submit his explanation. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 07.05.1996 was issued, to which he failed to give reply and, therefore, he was placed under suspension. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed who, in his report, held the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice dated 08.05.1998 was issued by the appellant-Corporation to the respondent to show cause why he should not be imposed the punishment of recovering the value of shortage stock, double the economic cost i.e. Rs.3,18,341.05 ps, besides stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The respondent had submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the same the appellant-Corporation, by proceedings dated 31.03.1999, directed to recover the value of shortage stock, double the economic cost i.e. Rs.3,18,341.05 ps, with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The appeals preferred thereagainst by the respondent were rejected by orders dated 08.02.2000 and 03.07.2000. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, by his judgment dated 31.08.2001, acquitted the respondent. Pursuant thereto the respondent made representation dated 28.10.2001 to the appellant- Corporation who, by order dated 10.07.2003, rejected his representation. In view of the rejection of both his appeals and representation, the respondent filed the Writ Petition. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that since the criminal case, for the very same charges and based on the very same evidence, ended in acquittal, the department proceedings shall conclude. By the impugned order, the learned Judge disposed of the Writ Petition observing that the respondent’s case deserves to be re-considered by the appellant-Corporation in the light of the acquittal recorded in C.C.No.303 of 1996 dated 31.08.2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District as confirmed in Crl.A.No.2207 of 2004 dated 01.02.2011. The contention advanced before this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation is that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the order of punishment on the sole ground of employee’s acquittal in the criminal case but it can, however, be a factor for awarding lesser punishment and the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter instead of directing to reconsider the case of the respondent. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to establish that the respondent-accused misappropriated the essential commodities viz. rice, sugar and wheat meant for public distribution system to a tune of Rs.1,59,170-52 ps (Rs.3,18,341.65 ps double the economic cost) beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal case. Both in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.[1] and G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat[2], the Supreme Court held that where the facts and evidence in the departmental enquiry as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being an iota of difference, then acquittal in a criminal case would necessitate disciplinary proceedings not being continued thereafter. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing to reconsider the case of the respondent. The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt:27.12.2011 Usd [1] 1999(3) SCC 679 [2] 2006(5) SCC 446