S SIVAJI Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Driver in the Salur Depot of APSRTC. On 27.7.1992, he reported to duty in the early hours. He took bus, bearing No.AEZ 2631, and came out after making necessary entries in the Security Office. A complaint was made by the Security Guard to the effect that the petitioner did not stop the bus, after making entries and that subsequently a bag containing blades of broken springs was handed over to a boy by the petitioner. A charge-sheet, dated 4.8.1992, was issued to the petitioner framing two charges, alleging theft of articles. THE petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the charges. THE departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding that the charges are proved.

(2.) THAT was followed by a show-cause notice dated 20.2.1993 issued by the Depot Manager, Salur, the 3rd respondent, proposing the punishment of removal. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 8.3.1993, directing removal of the petitioner from service. Simultaneously, the petitioner was tried in CC No.118 of 1992 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. Through judgment, dated 27.10.1993, the learned JFCM convicted the petitioner for the offence alleged against him and imposed the punishment but extended the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, requiring the petitioner to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner filed a criminal appeal, being Crl. A No.110 of 1993, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The appeal was allowed on 28.10.1994 and the conviction and sentence imposed against him, were set aside.

(3.) SRI Appaiah Shrama, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the departmental enquiry, the eye-witnesses and other circumstantial witnesses were examined and the charges were held proved. According to him, the purport of the disciplinary proceedings is different from the one, in the criminal cases. Learned Counsel submits that the 3rd respondent as well as the Labour Court have examined the matter in detail and no interference is warranted with the same.