THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30308 of 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.01/2(02)/2007-CTR-I dated 13.09.2007 passed by the third respondent as confirmed by the respondents 2 and 1 vide orders dated 19.03.2009 and 14.08.2009 respectively as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2 The petitioner was a driver in the respondent-Corporation. Consequent to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, he was issued a charge sheet dated 28.03.2007 levelling the following charge: “For having driven the vehicle AP 10 Z 1662 in negligent manner with lack of anticipation of the movements of the road users well in advance with utmost presence of mind, while driving the heavy passenger vehicle and hit an old person by name Sri S. Chengalraya Naidu aged about 70 years resulting in the fell down on the road and the right side rear wheels ran over on his head and died on the spot at Nampalli bus stop on 24.2.2007 at about 13-15 hours on rourte Chittor-Yellampalli which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (ix-a) & (xxix) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.” 3 The petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge and the third respondent after conducting enquiry into the said charge, issued proceedings dated 13.09.2007 ordering reduction of basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years which shall have an effect on the future increments of the petitioner besides treating the period of suspension as not on duty for all purposes. 4 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent by proceedings dated 19.03.2009 rejected the said appeal, as against which, the petitioner filed a review petition before the first respondent on 11.04.2009. However, the first respondent by proceedings dated 14.08.2009 also rejected the said review petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in connection with the allegation levelled against the petitioner that he was responsible for causing an accident, a criminal case was registered against him vide Cr.No.23 of 2007 on the file of P.S. Irala for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, which was later numbered as C.C.No.91 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Chittoor, and that by judgment dated 31.08.2010, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. holding that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner had thereafter submitted a representation dated 31.12.2010 to the first respondent stating that as per the Circular No.43/86 dated 16.04.1986 of the Corporation he is entitled for review of the punishment order in view of his acquittal in C.C.No.91 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Chittoor and the said representation is pending before the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the charge in the Criminal Case as well as in the departmental enquiry is one and the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Circular No.43/86 dated 16.04.1986 contemplates that the employee who is being inflicted with the punishment by the authorities, in connection with any crime and in a criminal case when the said employee is acquitted for the said offence, the punishment imposed by the departmental authorities needs to be reviewed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner had filed a representation before the first respondent on 31.12.2010, no orders have yet been passed on the said representation. 6 Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC by the competent criminal Court and that the petitioner had already made a representation to the first respondent on 31.12.2010 seeking to review the punishment imposed on him, and inasmuch as the said representation is still pending before the fist respondent, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the said representation made by the petitioner keeping in view of the Circular No. 43/86 dated 16.04.1986 as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ----------------------- G. CHANDRAIAH, J. 16.11.2011 Kvsn