M.VEERANNA Vs. TSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.3283 of 2016 maintained against the respondents 1 and 2. The impugned order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3283 of 2016, dated 08 -3 -2016, reads from the conclusion para that:

(2.) Present appeal filed against the impugned order is with the contentions from the grounds of appeal as well as the oral submissions by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge erred in not appreciating the facts that in similar set of facts in a single Judge of this Court was pleased to hold that, when the material allegations in the criminal case and departmental charge are one and the same and material witnesses are also one and the same, allowing the departmental enquiry would cause prejudice to him as accused in the criminal case. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant referring to another judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in C.G. Manager, Telecom District (BSNL) v. R.B. Ravi Shankar , particularly from para 11 that if the acts and omissions of the employee, which gave rise to prosecution, would also constitute acts of misconduct, the charges must be framed by the disciplinary authority almost simultaneously with the prosecution. It is a different matter that in case the subject -matter of the criminal case and departmental proceedings is similar or identical, further steps in the departmental proceedings cannot be taken till the conclusion of the criminal case, lest the employee is compelled to disclose his probable defence in the criminal case. Therefrom, the learned counsel contended that the Security Head Guard Satyanarayana, who in collusion with the other, allowed the scrap vehicle in the absence of appellant and theft of items so alleged in the complaint, but no action was taken against him nor any preliminary enquiry was conducted before the appellant being charge sheeted and suspended from service to find out the persons responsible. It is the submission therefrom that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is unsustainable and sought for setting aside the same. It is also prayed for interim stay of the departmental enquiry pending disposal of the writ appeal.

(3.) Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) that the order of the learned single Judge is a reasoned one and also in tune to the expression of the 3 -judge bench of the apex Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA and Ors. that was also reiterated in the subsequent expression of the apex Court in DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ANOTHER v. S.SAMUTHIRAM and thereby it is not from identicality of the facts involved and same witnesses shown in both the cases that is a criteria but further showing of there are complicated questions of law and fact also involved. The disciplinary proceedings initiated thereby cannot be stayed and hence to dismiss the writ appeal for no grounds to admit.