IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5542 of 2008 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada Depot, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Zonal Joint Secretary, Zonal Committee, APSRTC, National Mazdoor Union, Vijayawada, Rep. for Y.V.S. Rao E.No. 354317 , Driver. 2 The Labour Court, Guntur Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the records pertainding to ID No. 119/2002 dt.22-3-2007 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur and set aside the same as illegal, and arbitrary and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5542 of 2008 ORDER: One Y.V. Rao, E.No.354317 is employed as a Driver at Vijayawada Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 08/09-02-1997, he was entrusted with the duty of driving a bus from Bangalore to Vijayawada. A check by the Excise Officials was said to have taken place in the intervening night and it was alleged that four bottles of liquor were found in a bag near the seat of the Driver. On that basis charge sheet dated 18.03.1997 was issued to him. The employee submitted explanation. Domestic enquiry was conducted. Through the order dated 23.10.1997 the petitioner imposed punishment of withholding one increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect against the employee. The first respondent union espoused the cause of the employee and at its instance the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Guntur, vide I.D.No.119 of 2002. Through its award dated 22.03.2007, the Labour Court answered the reference stating that the punishment imposed against the employee is not justified. The said award is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee were not with reference to causing any accident or other acts and omissions deferrable to his duties. They were on the basis of a case registered by the Excise Officials. It is a matter of record that the case registered against the employee ended in acquittal. The Excise Officials were not able to prove that the bottles of liquor said to have been recovered were in the possession of the employee. This aspect of the matter was not taken into account. Unless an act or omission on the part of an employee constituted the basis for a charge in a criminal case on one hand and a charge in the disciplinary proceedings on the other hand, dichotomy does not exist as to the consequences of acquittal. In the instant case when the sole basis of the charge against the employee was the alleged recovery of liquor bottles and the said charge was held not proved by the criminal Court, there would not be any basis for imposing any punishment by disciplinary authority. The Labour Court appreciated the matter in a correct perspective. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned award. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14th March, 2008 GHN