HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 6495 OF 2006. DATED 9th December, 2010 BETWEEN The Chairman & Managing Director, APCPDCL, Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad and anr …Petitioners And The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 6495 OF 2006 . ORDER: Aggrieved by the Award dated 9.6.2005 passed in I.D.No. 101 of 2002 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court- III, Hyderabad, this Writ Petition is filed. Few necessary facts are that, the second respondent was initially appointed as Casual Labour in the second petitioner- APCPDCL, Nalgonda, and later he was promoted as Helper in 1989 and thereafter as Assistant Lineman in 1992. On the charge of impersonation, the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry on 3.6.1993. As the enquiry officer found the charge of impersonation levelled against the second respondent was proved, the petitioner authorities awarded the punishment of dismissal from service on 6.8.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent preferred an appeal, which was rejected on 11.11.1996. The Inspector of Vigilance and Anti Power Theft Squad investigated the case and filed CC.No. 280 of 1999 against the second respondent on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted the second respondent. Based on the said acquittal, the second respondent approached the Labour Court under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate him into service with full back wages. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner authorities did not adduce any evidence to show that the second respondent impersonated another person and secured employment and promotions thereafter. The Labour Court, based on the judgment of the trial Court, Photostat copy of identity card issued by the Assistant Commissioner and voters list, found that the second respondent secured employment in the petitioners’ organization as V.Seshasai Babu and got promotions thereafter, without impersonating anybody, and, set-aside the dismissal order dated 16.8.1995 and ordered for reinstatement of the second respondent as Assistant Lineman in the petitioners’ organization with continuity of service, but without back-wages and attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners-APCPDCL filed the present Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners-APCPDCL submitted that the Award of the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against the evidence on record. He further submitted that when there was an allegation of impersonation, it is for the second respondent to disprove the same, however, he failed to discharge the said burden. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the second respondent supported the award passed by the Labour Court as legal and based on evidence. Before the Labor Court, the petitioner authorities have not adduced any evidence to show that the second respondent impersonated some other person and got employment and promotions thereafter. Though, Photostat copy of identity card issued by the Assistant Commissioner and voters list filed by the second respondent were not marked in evidence, however, the Labour Court not only based on the same, but also based on the acquittal order passed by the trial Court, found that the second respondent has not impersonated any body to get employment in the petitioners’ organization. Further, as stated by the learned Counsel, in this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the second respondent and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the second respondent on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, and circumstances are one and the same. The criminal as well as the departmental proceedings initiated against the second respondent were on the same set of facts namely, impersonation. The criminal Court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the second respondent beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted him by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. The decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the second respondent in this regard in the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2006 SC 2129) fully supports his contentions. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 9th December, 2010. Msnro