A VENKATESHAM Vs. APSRTC MUSHEERABAD HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri V. Narasimha Goud and Mrs. Nanda Ramachandra Rao learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were facing a criminal trial as well as the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent Corporation against them simultaneously. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed in view of the pendency of the criminal trial against the petitioners initiated for the same acts. Learned Counsel for the petitioners very strongly and repeatedly relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another, 1999 LLR SC 499, in support of his contention. I will refer to this case at an appropriate place.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioners are the employees of the State Road Corporation. It is alleged that on 1 -5-1999 the petitioners deliberately and intentionally assaulted one Sri Venkateswara Rao, who is working as Chief Inspector in the respondent-Corporation in Uppal Bus Depot, in a barbaric and heinous way while he was on duty on 1-5-1999 at about 22.00 Hrs. The said assault is alleged to have been made on Sri Venkateswara Rao to intimidate him on the ground that he was not permitting the petitioners to perform the duties as per their choice. A crime was alleged to have been registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against both the petitioners. That criminal trial is stated to be pending separately. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said assault has not taken place in the premises of the respondent Corporation nor in any bus or vehicle belonging to the respondent Corporation. He, therefore, submits that there is no ground for initiating disciplinary proceedings in the first place and the said incident has nothing to do with the performance of the duty by the petitioners. Secondly, it is contended that criminal proceedings are on the same set of facts and on the basis of the same evidence initiation of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further, as it is likely to prejudice their defence. Thirdly, it is submitted that the respondents have not supplied the copies of the statements recorded in the course of the preliminary enquiry and also a copy of the police complaint given by Sri Venkateshwara Rao has not been supplied to them, and the respondents are bound to supply the copies of the said documents.