MOHD TOUFIQ Vs. GENERAL MANAGER APSRTC HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the driver of the bus APZ 7304. On March 29, 1978 while he was proceeding on the ghat road he had to negotiate three bends and while negotiating the third bend, a tyre got burst and the bus fell down towards the right, as a result, four passengers died and eight others received injuries. A criminal case was launched against him under Section 304-A IPC and department proceedings were also initiated against him THE petitioner was removed from service bv proceedings dated January 10, 1979 and on appeal it was confirmed by proceedings dated November 25, 1983 by the Divisional Manager, and his further revision to the Regional Manager was dismissed on October 22, 1984. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed In the meanwhile, the petitioner was acquitted by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 635/79 dated March 12, 1981. THE question, therefore, is whether the dismissal of the petitioner for the self same charge is valid in law ? It is no doubt true as contended by Sri Harinath, learned standing counsel for the Corporation that despite the acquittal by the Criminal Court, it is open to the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry as regards the misconduct or negligence in driving the vehicle and come to its own conclusion. But in an appropriate case where the very same charge was the subject matter of trial in a criminal case, (here under Section 304-A IPC) as held by the Supreme Court in Corporation of Nagpur Vs. Ramchandra G, Modak (1) AIR 1984 SC 626 that annually where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exoneraged of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental enquiry on the vary same charges or grounds or evidence,..' Though their Lordships have held that it is open to the authorities to conduct an enquiry in view of the facts in that case, the question of acquittal did not arise. THErefore their Lordships held that it is open to the authorities to conduct an enquiry. One fact is relevant to take note of. If the acquittal is merely on technical grounds, it is always open to the authorities to conduct enquiry and come to its own conclusion on substantive evidence whether the charged officer has committed misconduct despite the acquittal on mere technical grounds. But when the charge before the disciplinary authority and the criminal court is same, and when the accused was acquitted honourably by the Court on merits, it is not open to the departmental authorities to harass the charged officer twice over for the very same charge. As already stated, this Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 635/79 has acquitted the petitioner on merits. THErefore when the petitioner was acquitted of the charge on merits, it is not expedient to conduct an enquiry on the self same charge and mete out the order of dismissal from service. THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.