JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the award dated 14-9-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ananthapur in I.D.No. 49 of 1996 upholding the proceedings of the second respondent in Proceedings No. 02/2(25)/1994-PLR, dated 21-02-1995 removing the petitioner from service of driver of the APSRTC. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as driver in APSRTC in 1992. While he was working as driver in Piler Depot of Chittoor district, the bus bearing No. AEZ-3949 met with an accident on 23-10-1994. In the said accident, two persons died on the spot and two other persons received injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry was initiated against him for the charge of causing death of two persons and injuries to others by driving the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, which constitutes misconduct as per Regulation No. 28 of Clause XXXII of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges and submitted his report. The second respondent having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer came to the provisional conclusion to impose punishment of removal from service on the petitioner after issuing a show cause notice and receiving explanation. Against the proceedings of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent and the third respondent in his proceedings dated 07-6-1998 dismissing the appeal confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. Subsequently the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the first respondent contending inter alia that the order of removal passed by the second respondent is not valid. The first respondent Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur, upholding the orders passed by the second respondent removing the petitioner from service as driver in the APSRTC passed an award to that effect. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anand Shinde, the learned counsel representing Smt. WVS Rajeswari, standing counsel for the APSRTC. 4. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anand Shinde, the learned counsel representing Smt. WVS Rajeswari, standing counsel for the APSRTC. 4. Before proceeding to consider the validity of the award passed by the first respondent, it requires to be noticed that after the accident Cr.No. 68 of 1994 was registered against the petitioner in Vayalpad Police Station and after the matter had been investigated into charge sheet came to be filed alleging commission of offence under section 304 (A) and 337 IPC. The petitioner was tried for the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC during the course of which the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P-10. On behalf of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. Before the learned Magistrate, who tried the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC in CC.No. 11 of 1995 against the petitioner all the material witnesses including the injured did not support the prosecution version and the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner herein holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 304-A and 337 IPC and acquitted the petitioner. It may further be noticed that the Enquiry Officer passed the order upholding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him prior to the judgment was rendered in CC.No. 11 of 1995 by the learned Magistrate. Further the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate in CC.No. 11 of 1995 was placed before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, the first respondent herein and the first respondent taking the view that the departmental enquiry is independent of the criminal case, which was disposed of by the learned Magistrate concurred with the orders passed during the course of departmental enquiry which culminated in removal from service of the petitioner. 5. Now the question to be determined in this writ petition is whether when the petitioner was acquitted of the same charges in a criminal case holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner and whether for the same charges in the departmental enquiry the petitioner can be held guilty and the order of removal from service passed against him is justified ? 6. 6. Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the departmental enquiry as well as the criminal prosecution was on one and the same charges and no misconduct being attributed to the petitioner and when he was acquitted by the criminal court for the same charges, the authorities who conducted departmental enquiry and also the Industrial Tribunal which passed award finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct committed error and the order of removal from service was liable to be quashed in this writ petition. 7. On the other hand, Sri Anand Shindey, the learned counsel representing Smt. WVS Rajeswari, the learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that during the course of departmental enquiry additional witness by name Reddeppa who was given up by the prosecution in the criminal case was examined and he stated before the Enquiry Officer that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and accordingly it was held during the course of departmental enquiry that the charges against the petitioner stood proved, and therefore, the evidence which was taken into consideration being different, the award which was ultimately passed by the first respondent Industrial Tribunal confirming the orders during the course of enquiry need not be interfered with. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a decision in MANAGEMENT OF SINGARENI COLLIERIES LTD. RAMAKRISHNAPUR DIVISION, KALYANIKHANI V/s. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL {C} HYDERABAD AND ORS 1989 (2) LLJ-608, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court held that the judgment of the criminal court has to be taken into account by the disciplinary authority and given its due weight in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner-employee and it It is not open to the management to ignore the criminal court’s judgment. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon another decision in S.SIVAJI V/s. CHAIRMAN-cum-PRESIDING OFFICER, THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM AND ORS 2011 (5) ALT-409, wherein the charge against the petitioner-driver of APSRTC is that he committed theft from the garriage premises. He was tried for committing theft. The Magistrate convicted him of the said offence and imposed sentence but extended the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing him to any punishment. In the appeal preferred there against the petitioner was acquitted. He was tried for committing theft. The Magistrate convicted him of the said offence and imposed sentence but extended the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act instead of sentencing him to any punishment. In the appeal preferred there against the petitioner was acquitted. But in the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the department punishment of removal from service was imposed on him holding that the charges are proved. Referring to the above facts, the learned single Judge held that since the allegations in the criminal case as well as the departmental enquiry are one and the same and in all fairness the third respondent ought to have deferred the matter till the criminal court decided the case. However, he proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. Taking the same into account, the third respondent passed an order, dated 08-3-1993 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The judgment of the criminal case came few months thereafter, may be, holding that the crime against the petitioner is proved. 10. The learned single Judge apart from holding that the Labour Court happens to be a final authority on facts held as follows: However, in the context of examining whether the charge was proved beyond doubt and whether the punishment imposed against the petitioner is warranted or proportionate, the punishment in a criminal case, may put the accused to inconvenience or hardship for a limited time. However, the punishment imposed against an employee in the form of removal would deny him as well as his family of the livelihood and therefore, proper care must be taken to ensure that the relevant facts are proved before such major punishment is imposed. Even if the allegation is proved it should not have entailed in the imposition of punishment of removal from service. The petitioner was out of employment for the past almost two decades. Hence, this court is of the view that the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages, would meet the ends of justice. 11. Even if the allegation is proved it should not have entailed in the imposition of punishment of removal from service. The petitioner was out of employment for the past almost two decades. Hence, this court is of the view that the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages, would meet the ends of justice. 11. The learned counsel further relied on a decision in S.K. RAMJU V/s. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NALGONDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT AND ORS 2001 (4) ALD 535 (DB), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “In that case there was absolutely no iota of difference between the criminal case and the departmental proceedings, and as such, it was held that the departmental proceedings is vitiated in law. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant stands on a better footing, in the sense, the misconduct which is said to have been committed by the appellant goes out of factual matrix, which was also the subject-matter of criminal case and not independent. It is not a case where the petitioner was charged with any misconduct unconnected with the said accident. In any event, as it has been held by the criminal court that the appellant was not guilty of the charge of causing death, and he had not been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, we fail to understand as to how despite the said finding of competent court of law, the reputation of the respondent-corporation has been damaged.” 12. Turning to the facts of the present case, in this case also the order holding the petitioner guilty of the charges of causing death of two individuals and injuries to two others was held proved. Though the criminal case was pending, the judgment in the criminal case acquitting the accused came later. No appeal was filed by the State against the said judgment in CC.No.11 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalapad. Though the Labour Court is final and in so far as the position in relation to facts is concerned, while passing the award it has to take into consideration the judgment passed by the criminal court. Though the Labour Court is final and in so far as the position in relation to facts is concerned, while passing the award it has to take into consideration the judgment passed by the criminal court. One of the circumstances in favour of the petitioner is that in the criminal trial held against him, none of the witnesses, even the injured did not state that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In such an event merely because the witness who was given up by the prosecution stated in the departmental enquiry that the accident was due to the fault of the petitioner, the learned Industrial Tribunal ought not to have passed the award without taking into consideration the judgment passed by the criminal court. 13. Since the petitioner was tried in the criminal case and was also enquired in the departmental proceedings for the same charges and he was acquitted of the charges by the criminal court holding that the prosecution was unable to establish his guilt the said fact ought to have been considered by the authorities while proceeding with the departmental enquiry and also the Industrial Tribunal while passing the award. In view of the judgment of the division bench referred supra-2, when once he was acquitted of the same charge, which was tried in the criminal court, he cannot be found guilty and be punished in the departmental enquiry without there being any other misconduct unconnected with the accident attributed to him. Further when the injured themselves in the criminal trial did not state about any rash and negligent driving to the petitioner, the authority i.e., conducting the departmental enquiry ought not to have relied on Reddappa who can only be a chance witness. For all these reasons, the proceedings No. 02/2(25)/1994-PLR, dated 21-3-1995 which culminated in award passed by the first respondent-Industrial Tribunal in ID.No. 49 of 1996 confirming the said proceedings are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service with continuity of service but without backwages. The continuity of service shall be restricted only to one of fixation of pay without any arrears counting the service for determining the retirement benefits. 14. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.