Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad-II in I.D. No.103 of 1998 (Old I.D. No.228 of 1994), dated 08-06-1999, published on 03-09-1999. 2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner herein joined the service of A.P.S.R.T.C. as Conductor in Medchal Depot in 1966. He was promoted as Controller/Assistant Depot Clerk in 1977. A Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and Departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Then the 2nd respondent passed orders on 05-11-1992 removing the petitioner from service. On that he preferred an appeal and subsequently a review petition but was unsuccessful. Then he raised the industrial dispute, but was unsuccessful before the Tribunal as referred above. The petitioner and one B. Manohar, Conductors were charge sheeted in C.C. No.436 of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 30-06-1994 by the said Court. However, the first accused Manohar was found guilty and he was convicted. 3. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows : 1) For having collaborated with the conductor Sri B. Manohar, for theft the ticket block and SR’s. 2) For having failed to report the missing of 4 SR’s on 13-10-1991 while performing dispatch duty. 3) For having failed to report the missing of Six SR’s on 10-10-1991 and Ten SR’s on 11-10-1991 while performing duty as A.D.C. 4. It appears that the Charge sheet is dated 05-03-1992 before the matter was referred to the Enquiry Officer on 21-03-1992. It is clear that seven days time was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation from the date of receipt of the charge sheet. It is not clear when the said charge sheet was served on the petitioner. Then the petitioner submitted his explanation on 13-04-1992 and taken a specific stand that in the Charge sheet the particulars of ticket block number, key number, denomination number of blocks and date are not furnished. He further stated in his explanation that if the particulars of ticket blocks are furnished he can verify the records and relevant way bills to clarify whether they pertained to his duty. He further stated in his explanation that if the particulars of ticket blocks are furnished he can verify the records and relevant way bills to clarify whether they pertained to his duty. Thus, he made a specific request to furnish the particulars of the blocks and specific typed number of S.R. with regard to missing of S.Rs. His case is that he had maintained Dispatch Register while dispatching S.Rs., and mentioned the particulars of Conductor’s name, staff number, S.R. number supplied, 141 card, and impost, and if the copy of the Dispatch Register on 13-10-1991 is provided to him he can know missing S.Rs’ number supplied and requested to furnish a copy of the extracts of the Dispatch Register dated 13-10-1991, 10-10-1991 and 11-10-1991. The submission of explanation by the petitioner has been referred by the Enquiry Officer in his report and it is not in dispute. A perusal of entire record reveals that there is no material to show whether the petitioner had been supplied with the documents required by him. Admittedly, S.Rs’ numbers, ticket block numbers etc., are not mentioned in the Charges. The charges are simply say that “failed to report about the missing of 4 S.Rs. on 13-10-1991, 6 S.Rs. on 10-10-1991 and 10 S.Rs. on 11.10.1991. 5. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents, has referred to the enquiry report and submits that Xerox copy of the Dispatch Register folios dated 10-10-1991, 11-10-1991 and 13-10-1991 have been marked by the Enquiry Officer. There cannot be any doubt to say that those documents were before the Enquiry Officer. 6. The Enquiry Officer has examined witnesses and also referred to certain documents. There cannot be any doubt to say that B. Manohar, Conductor was arrested by the police. He was found in possession of 33 S.Rs. During the course of enquiry, statement of A.H.S.S. Prakash, Deputy Manager (T) JBS was recorded. This witness has given the particulars of those S.Rs. numbers. The petitioner has not cross-examined this witness. Then the statement of one T. Madan, Deputy Manager (T) JBS has been recorded. The Enquiry Officer mentioned in his report as follows : “During the course of enquiry Sri T. Madan, Dy. This witness has given the particulars of those S.Rs. numbers. The petitioner has not cross-examined this witness. Then the statement of one T. Madan, Deputy Manager (T) JBS has been recorded. The Enquiry Officer mentioned in his report as follows : “During the course of enquiry Sri T. Madan, Dy. Manager (T) HS has totally accepted the statement given by Sri A.H.S.S. Prakash (Co-preliminary enquiry officer)and added Sri V. Nagaiah, E.28295, ADC was arrested by Medchal police on 04-03-1992 and remanded to the Judicial custody and kept in jail for eleven days, and subsequently released on conditional bail. The delinquent did not condemn the statement of Sri T. Madan, Dy. Manager (T) HS or did not cross-examine him though the opportunity was given to him.” 7. Same procedure seems to have been followed in respect of other charges. When the statement of one witness was recorded and when the other witness simply stated that he has accepted the statement made by the earlier witness, it appears that the statements of witnesses were recorded in the presence of one another, such procedure is totally irregular. The statements of witnesses have to be recorded separately, not in the presence of one another. The statement of a witness that he has accepted the version of other witness cannot be treated as a deposition on oath. It is also surprising to note that the petitioner has not cross-examined any one of those witnesses. 8. The main contention of Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, standing counsel for the respondents, is with regard to the statement made by the petitioner himself before the Enquiry Officer. With regard to the Charge No.1, the petitioner stated that he was called by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Medchal on 04-03-1992 and he was present in the Police Station where Sri B. Manohar, Conductor, Medchal Depot was also available. Sri V. Nagaiah, E.23295, ADC of Medchal Depot (Petitioner) also stated that Sri B. Manohar, Conductor, had given the statement to the police that the unconcerned ticket blocks which were confiscated by him were supplied by Sri V. Nagaiah, E.23295, ADC on payment of Rs.60/- to Rs.70/- on every occasion. Sri V. Nagaiah stated that the Conductor had thrown the blame on him to escape from the police case. The main contention of Sri. Sri V. Nagaiah stated that the Conductor had thrown the blame on him to escape from the police case. The main contention of Sri. C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, Standing counsel for the respondents, is that when the petitioner has admitted that the Conductor B. Manohar has made a statement before the police in his statement it amounts to an admission made by the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt to say that the petitioner has admitted that B. Manohar, Conductor had made a statement before the police. Even if the Conductor made a statement before the police, and making of such a statement by B. Manohar, Conductor, is admitted by the petitioner, the same cannot be taken into consideration, since the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Any statement made by any accused while in the custody of police becomes inadmissible under law. Only a portion of the statement, which leads to recovery of material object, would be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Law is very clear on this aspect. Any statement made by the accused while in the custody of police cannot be made use by any person in any Court or in any Tribunal or in any proceedings, since the same is inadmissible. The finding of the Enquiry Officer on this aspect appears to be against law. The Enquiry Officer observed as follows : “Unless there is some truth there is no need to Sri B. Manohar, Conductor of Medchal depot to reveal the name of Sri V. Nagaiah, E.28295, ADC before the police leaving all the Supervisors, ADCs and staff of Medchal depot.” 9. The statement of Sri A.H.S.S. Prakash reveals that some other employees were also responsible for the entire episode. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the preliminary enquiry report reveals that one Sasibhushan, ADC is also responsible for loss of 10 SRs on 22-02-1992 during his shift and that he had allowed Sri B. Manohar, Conductor to operate on Medchal – Mattampally continuously, but no action was taken against Sashibhusan, ADC. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the preliminary enquiry report reveals that one Sasibhushan, ADC is also responsible for loss of 10 SRs on 22-02-1992 during his shift and that he had allowed Sri B. Manohar, Conductor to operate on Medchal – Mattampally continuously, but no action was taken against Sashibhusan, ADC. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents, seems to be right in saying that the petitioner has not insisted to supply the copies of the documents before the Enquiry Officer, and there is no record to say that subsequently he requested the Enquiry Officer to supply those documents. However, the fact remains that the petitioner submitted an explanation to the charge sheet on 13-04-1992, wherein he had categorically requested to provide copies of certain documents for submitting a detailed explanation. There is nothing on record to show that the documents required by the petitioner were supplied to him. When the documents basing upon which the Charges were framed, are not supplied to him, it is clear that it is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 10. As far as the validity of the domestic enquiry is concerned Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents, is right in saying that the Industrial Tribunal observed that the petitioner was given all opportunities and the enquiry is valid. But admittedly, the Tribunal observed that there is already a finding giving by this Tribunal holding that the domestic enquiry is valid. Now, it is admitted case that no such order is available on record to show that the Tribunal has already given a finding holding that the domestic enquiry is valid. In fact, at this stage, I intended to remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the validity of the domestic enquiry. But Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner already attained the age of superannuation and that he was removed from service in the year 1992 and it would cause great hardship to the petitioner if the matter is remanded back to Industrial Tribunal. 11. As discussed above, there are two important aspects in this case. One issue is when the petitioner requested the Depot Manager to furnish certain documents to submit his explanation, the documents were not furnished to him. 11. As discussed above, there are two important aspects in this case. One issue is when the petitioner requested the Depot Manager to furnish certain documents to submit his explanation, the documents were not furnished to him. If at all the charges are based as per the entries made in documents, the charges would have contained the details of S.R. numbers etc., Now, as far as the prejudice is concerned, whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioner or not? Admittedly, in the charges the numbers of ticket blocks and SRs were not given. In the absence of ticket block numbers and SR numbers, it appears that it was difficult to verify the record and submit an explanation. Therefore, presumption has to be drawn that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for non-supply of essential documents. Probably that may be the reason for his becoming mute before the Enquiry Officer and in not cross-examining any of the witnesses. Admittedly, there is no order of the Tribunal holding the domestic enquiry is valid. 12. There is another aspect in this case. Admittedly, a competent Criminal Court has found the petitioner as not guilty vide judgment dated 30-06-1994 in C.C.No.436 of 1992. When a Criminal Court found that the petitioner is not guilty of the Charges leveled against him, which are almost similar and connected to the Charges made in this case, the statement of B. Manohar, Conductor, alleged to have been made before the police looses its importance. The Enquiry Officer, of course, seems to have been given an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, but the petitioner failed to cross-examine those witnesses, when the Enquiry Officer referred to the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 13-04-1992 in the enquiry report, he should have examined the fact as to whether the copies of the record sought by the petitioner have been furnished to him or not in his enquiry report, and if not furnished, in all fairness the Enquiry Officer should have furnished the copies of documents to the petitioner to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses. As referred to above, the Enquiry Officer having recorded the statement of one witness, subsequently while recording the statement of another witness simply stated that the second witness totally accepted the version of the first witness. Accepting version of one witness by another is not known to law. As referred to above, the Enquiry Officer having recorded the statement of one witness, subsequently while recording the statement of another witness simply stated that the second witness totally accepted the version of the first witness. Accepting version of one witness by another is not known to law. This kind of recording of evidence appears to be irregular and incorrect. 13. In view of the above reasons, the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation long back, the ends of justice will meet, if the 2nd respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.