JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. The writ petitioner preferred by the petitioner-RSRTC assails the order dated 30/11/2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the application submitted for seeking approval of removal order dated 10/01/1997 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been rejected and the order of removal has been disapproved. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings conducted by the petitioner-RSRTC were found to be fair vide order dated 15/09/2015 by the Tribunal having been conducted in terms of the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal has thereafter erred in rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. It is submitted that the evidence of Ashok Kumar and Hari Singh was recorded in departmental proceedings who both stated that the stolen goods were found in possession of the workman Surjeet Singh. It is submitted that the FIR had been registered with regard to the same allegations. Therein, the respondent-workman was acquitted in appeal vide order dated 16/06/2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that merely because the respondent-workman was acquitted by the appellate court in the criminal appeal preferred by him, it cannot be said that the respondent-workman was not guilty of the misconduct in departmental proceedings where the departmental authority had an independent decision to take. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Sankar Singh : (2014) 3 SCC 610 wherein there were identical charges levelled in departmental as well as criminal proceedings. It was held that once an employee has been acquitted by a criminal court, it would not mean that reinstatement was automatic and there is no rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a criminal court even though the charges levelled against the delinquent officer before the enquiry officer as well as criminal court are same. The acquittal of Police Officer by a criminal court would not bar award of departmental punishment. In the circumstances, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman having been found to be in possession of the stolen articles, no interference was required to be made by the Labour Court and the approval ought to have been granted to the removal order dated 10/01/1997. 4. In the circumstances, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman having been found to be in possession of the stolen articles, no interference was required to be made by the Labour Court and the approval ought to have been granted to the removal order dated 10/01/1997. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the evidence of Hari Singh and Ashok Kumar has been found to be contradictory by the Tribunal. It has also noted the statements made by Ashok Kumar in the criminal proceedings wherein he has admitted that there was dispute between the management and Surjeet and the Manager wanted to remove Surjeet from service. The stand of the workman was also the same in reply where he has also stated that the Manager was having vengeance against the respondent-workman and had wrongfully lodged the FIR against him and the Court has also given a finding of malafideness and due to revengeful attitude, the proceedings have been found to be unfair and illegal. The Tribunal has also reached to the same finding that where the workman is honourably acquitted for the criminal charges, for the same charges, he could not have been held guilty in the departmental enquiry, specially when the set of witnesses was the same. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Bhaskar Reddy v. Superintendent of Police: (2015) 2 SCC 365 wherein it was held that once a person has been acquitted honourably from the charges which are the same as levelled in disciplinary proceedings, the order of dismissal passed in departmental proceedings has to be set aside. The law laid down in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and ors.: (2006) 5 SCC 446 ; Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and anr.: (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. v. S. Samuthiram: (2013) 1 SCC 598 have been considered. In the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and anr. v. S. Samuthiram (supra), it was held as under:- Para 24 The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 . In the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and anr. v. S. Samuthiram (supra), it was held as under:- Para 24 The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541 . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. 5. Having considered the law as submitted by both the counsels and having considered the order passed by the Tribunal dated 30/11/2016 as well as the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 16/06/2001, this Court finds that the Sessions Judge has given a finding of their being a dispute between the management and the respondent-workman and the criminal proceedings initiated were on account of malice, bias and personal vengeance of the management authorities. The respondent workman has taken the same grounds in the departmental proceedings also but this aspect has been completely overlooked by the disciplinary authority. While passing the order impugned dated 30/11/2016, the learned Tribunal has however, considered this aspect of the matter and while examining the variance in the statement made by the same witnesses in the criminal case as well as before the departmental proceedings, has satisfied itself to reach to the conclusion that the proceedings were mala fide and has therefore, refused to approve the order of removal dated 10/01/1997. It has also reached to conclusion that there was no act of theft proved even in departmental enquiry as the workman was in possession of goods during office hours and had stated that he was taking them to the workshop. 6. It has also reached to conclusion that there was no act of theft proved even in departmental enquiry as the workman was in possession of goods during office hours and had stated that he was taking them to the workshop. 6. Taking into consideration the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 30/11/2016 passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.