THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26611 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a Motor Vehicle Driver, in the Singareni Collieries. On 15.11.2007, he was entrusted with the duty of driving a van, bearing No. AP-15T-9707. Some employees, including one Mr. Davood Beig, were being taken for attending the work at certain heavy machinery at 830 RL Bench. It was alleged that the petitioner had parked the vehicle on a sloping floor inside the quarry, without applying parking brake and leaving engine in running condition, and on account of the same, the vehicle started rolling back, and in the process, Davood Beig, who was in the back side, was hit, leading to his death. A charge sheet to that effect was issued on 22.11.2007. On a complaint made by the wife of the deceased, FIR No.121 of 2007 was registered by P.S. Kamanpur, alleging an office under Section 304-A I.P.C. against the petitioner. The criminal case is said to be pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani. This writ petition is filed, with a prayer to direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry, till the criminal case is disposed of. Petitioner contends that the nature of defence to be offered by him in the criminal case, on the one hand, and departmental proceedings, on the other hand, is one and the same. Respondents filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the scope of departmental proceedings is totally different from the one in the criminal case. According to them, the nature of duties referable to the Mines Act 1952, etc, are the subject matter in the departmental proceedings. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was accused of being negligent, in performing the duty while driving a vehicle, entrusted to him. The rolling back of the vehicle, when parked at a slope, has resulted in the death of a co- employee. It may have given rise to a complaint and registration of a criminal case, under Section 304-A I.P.C. The scope of the criminal case is, however, different from the one, in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner has to answer several allegations, such as, not being careful in discharging the duties, not taking note of the precautions that are prescribed under the relevant provisions of law, etc. Even in cases, where an employee is acquitted of the offence of this nature, the departmental proceedings do not get absolved, on that account. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. The observations made by this court shall not be treated as final, either in the departmental proceedings, or in the criminal case. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 22nd July 2008 PAN