IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4232 of 2002 Between: Y. Venkateswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Vice Chirman and Managing Director, A.P,. State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada Region, Krishna District and three others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SRINIVASA RAO. Counsel for the Respondent: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 25-5-1999 and 8-12-2000 passed by respondents 3 and 2 respectively. The petitioner was a conductor working in the Machilipatnam Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”). He was alleged to have entered the garage of Machilipatnam Depot along with his associates on 6-2- 1994 and assaulted Sri Ch.Amaleswara Rao, on duty Patrolling Security Guard, inside the premises of the Corporation and also one Sri K.Nancharayya, S.A.S.I. of Machilipatnam Depot on the evening of 7-3-1994 at Nataraj Tea Center, opposite to Machilipatnam bus station. The petitioner was also alleged to have abused Sri N.V.Bhaskara Rao, Depot Manager, Machilipatnam, while he was on duty, in a filthy language and shouted at him on the evening of 7-2-1994 at Machilipatnam bus station. Based on the preliminary enquiry, the following charges were framed against the petitioner: “1. For having entered into the MTM Depot garage on the night of 6-2-94 along with your associates stated in the allegations and abused the mechanical Supervisors and Security Personnel in a shouting manner and thus disorderly behaved in the premises of Corporation, which tantamounts to misconduct under Reg.28(xviii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having assaulted Sri Ch.Amaleswara Rao, E.99833, on-duty Patrolling Security Guard of MTM Garage on the night of 6-2-94 inside the premises of the Corporation, which tantamounts to misconduct under Reg.28(xi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 3. For having involved in the incident of assaulting of Sri K.Nancharaiah, SASI, MTM Depot along with your above associates on the evening of 7-2-94 at Natraj Tea Centre, Opposite to the MTM Bus Station, which tantamounts to misconduct under Reg.28(xv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 4. For having abused Sri N.V.Bhaskara Rao, D.M., MTM in a very filthy language and shouted at him in the evening of 7-2- 94 assembling at the Bus Station associating others stated in the allegations and for having uttered ‘ORE DM GA, ENNALLU IKKADA VUNTAVURA, CHUSTAMU, LANJA KODAKA, NEE PELLANNI DENGA, DONGANAKODAKA, NEE SANGATHI CHUSTAMURA, BHASKARARAO’, and thus behaved unruly, which tantamounts to misconduct, under Reg.28 (iv) (xv) (xviii) and (xxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963”. After completion of departmental enquiry, respondent No.3, by order dated 25-5-1999, imposed punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by three incremental stages for a period of three years, which shall have an effect on future increments; and treating the suspension period as not on duty. The said order was questioned in appeal before respondent No.2, who by order dated 8-12-2000 dismissed the same. Questioning these two orders the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was tried on identical criminal charges and was acquitted by the learned II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam by judgment dated 11- 1-1996 in C.C. No.76 of 1994 and, therefore, the impugned orders, by which penalty is imposed on the petitioner, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further contended that the enquiry officer denied the petitioner reasonable opportunity and, therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. As regards the first contention, I have carefully perused the judgment in the criminal case. The petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, mainly, on the ground that the Divisional Manager, who allegedly witnessed the offence, as per the version of PW.1, was not cited as a witness and not examined. On that premise, the petitioner was acquitted. The law is well settled that the degree of proof in the criminal proceedings varies with the degree of proof in departmental proceedings. While in the former case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is a sine quo non; in the latter case, preponderance of probabilities is enough to impose the penalty. (See the decisions of the Supreme Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. SREE RAMA RAO[1]; B.C.CHATURVEDI V UNION OF INDIA[2]; HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY V. UDAYSINGH[3]; HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE V. SHASHIKANT S. PATIL[4]; SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION V SAGAR KUMAR MITRA[5]; KAPRA MAZDOOR EKTA UNION V. BIRLA COTTON SPG. AND WEAVING MILLS LTD[6]; KARNATAKA BANK LTD. V. A.L.MOHAN RAO7 to cite a few). The enquiry officer’s findings are evidently based on the evidence recorded by him in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, merely on account of acquittal of the petitioner by the criminal court, on benefit of doubt, the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings cannot be set aside. The petitioner neither filed the enquiry report, nor pointed out any fallacies in the findings of the enquiry officer to enable this Court to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner based on such findings. Hence, I am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the second contention, that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity, on the facts given by the petitioner in his affidavit, the enquiry, which was commenced in the year 1994, got prolonged till the year 1996 and it underwent several adjournments at the instance of the petitioner for one reason or the other. Even on the petitioner’s own showing in respect of the enquiry held on 24-10-1996 and 25-10-1996 he received the notice on 2-11-1996 due to postal strike and order imposing penalty on him was passed on 25- 5-1999. If the petitioner was interested in participating in the enquiry, nothing prevented him from approaching either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority seeking reopening of the enquiry immediately after receipt of notice on 2-11-1996. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that at any point of time after 2-11- 1996 he made any effort to get the enquiry reopened. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner, who failed to avail the repeated opportunities of participating in the enquiry, cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. Having gone through the orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 and the seriousness of the allegations, which are held proved, I am of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by respondent No.3 and confirmed by respondent No.2 does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 27-2-2008 MNR [1]) AIR 1963 SC 1723 [2] ) (1995) 6 SCC 749 [3] ) AIR 1997 SC 2286 [4] ) (2000) 1 SCC 416. [5] )(2006) 2 SCC 584 [6] ) 2006 SCC (L&S) 1635. 7 ) (2006) 1 SCC 63.