ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District (for short “the Labour Court”) in I.D.No.67 of 2004. 2. Heard Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 1st respondent’s office on 27.02.1984 and his services were utilized in various categories from 1987 to 1990 and was later posted as System Supervisor in the Computer Section in the year 1990 and since then he has been discharging his duties regularly. (b) While so, on 13.04.2002, the petitioner fell sick and joined duty on 16.04.2002 duly submitting a Medical Certificate. On the allegations made by the checking officials of the Regional Enforcement Squad, Karimnagar, against the conductor one Sri B.B.Rao of Karimnagar Depot, who is said to have possessed a ticket block No.036/582800 of Rs.60/- belonging to Karimnagar-II Depot, the respondent lodged a complaint before the Police Station, I-Town, Karimnagar, alleging theft of three ticket blocks worth Rs.18,000/-. Based on the said complaint, C.C.No.194 of 2002 was registered against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension and issued charge-sheet dated 18.04.2002 framing the four charges. Charge No. 1: For having committed into Theft of Ticket Blocks bearing Nos. of Rs.60/- 036/582700, 036/582800 and 016/582900 E. Pertaining to Karimnagar-II Depot with an intention to defraud the revenues of the Corporation, while working as a System Supervisor, in KRMR II-Depot, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg 28(x) of A.P.SR.T.C. (CC & A) Reg. 1967. Charge No.2: For having generated the Way Bill and having sold-out the Ticket Block in connivance with the conductor, Sri B.B. Rao E 102368, of KRMR-ONE Depot in the Computer of Karimnagar-II Depot, and fed Ticket Blocks bearing No. as were mentioned in Charge No.1, worth of Rs.60/- with an intention to misappropriate the legitimate Revenue of the Corporation which constitutes serious misconduct in terms of Reg. 28(iii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Conduct Reg. 1963 read with Reg.9 under Note (2) (ii & iv) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (CC & A) Reg. 1967. 28(iii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Conduct Reg. 1963 read with Reg.9 under Note (2) (ii & iv) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (CC & A) Reg. 1967. Charge No.3: For having issued the generated Way Bill bearing No.0311/05102938, dt: 8-4-2002, from Computer of Karimnagar-II Dept., duly fed the Ticket Block No.036/582800 worth of Rs.60/- in connivance with Sri B.B. Rao, E 102368 Conductor/KARIMNAGAR-ONE Depot, while he was performing Borewell to Karimnagar on 12.4.2002, and the same was detected by R.E.S/KRMR on 12.4.2002, with fraudulent Moto which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (iii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees' Conduct Reg. 1963, read with Regd. 9 Under Note (2) (xi) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees C.C. & A Reg. 1967. Charge No.4: “ For having absconded from your duties, w.e.f. 13.4.2002 since the incident took place and produced Medical certificate on 16.4.2002, to coverup your absence which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg. 28 of (xxvii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (conduct) Reg. 1963. (c) The petitioner submitted explanation to the said charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, ordered a detailed enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, conducted an ex-parte enquiry and submitting the findings holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the respondents have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 20.12.2002. The petitioner has submitted an explanation to the said show-cause notice. The petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.194 of 2002 by judgment, dated 30.07.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Karimnagar. Subsequently, the respondents have passed the proceedings dated 10.01.2003 imposing the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent and the same was rejected through proceedings dated 20.02.2004. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed I.D.No.67 of 2004 before the 3rd respondent and the same was dismissed on 20.10.2005. Challenging the order dated 20.10.2005, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor his services have been utilized in Computers. The disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordered a detailed enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry, which is not fair and proper. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless. 5. The disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordered a detailed enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry, which is not fair and proper. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondent himself lodged a complaint against the petitioner and he himself acted as a disciplinary authority in respect of the very same allegations, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that as per the statement of B.B.Rao, the petitioner is not responsible for the theft of ticket blocks. The petitioner is not a proper person to handover the ticket blocks to the Conductor and the concerned Assistant Deport Clerk would allot the same to the Conductors. There is no relation between Karimnagar-I and II Depots and the petitioner is no way concerned with the issuance of way bills to the Conductors. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, erroneously passed the order, dated 10.01.2003, removing the petitioner from service. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of cases held that consequent upon acquittal in a criminal case, the employee is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, if the charges are one and the same in the departmental enquiry as well as in the criminal case. In the present case, the charges mentioned in the Charge-Memo for the departmental enquiry and the charges mentioned in the criminal case are one and the same and though the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.194 of 2002, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal erroneously confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order in I.D.No.67 of 2004, dated 20.10.2005 and allow the writ petition. 10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis on 27.02.1984 in the respondent Corporation. On similar grounds of cash and ticket irregularities, earlier the following punishments were imposed on the petitioner. 10. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis on 27.02.1984 in the respondent Corporation. On similar grounds of cash and ticket irregularities, earlier the following punishments were imposed on the petitioner. 1 Censured 2 times 2 Annual increments deferred 2 times (b) At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working at Karimnagar-II Depot. As the petitioner possessed software skills, his services were being utilized as System Supervisor. The petitioner was the sole incharge of Depot Computer System for performing the following duties :- “a) To Boot (start) the system and shut down the system after completion of Traffic Operations. b) To generate all the revenue reports Daily/Monthly pertaining to traffic (Earnings) Section. c) To safe guard the system from meddling by an unscrupulous elements and prevent fraudulent practices by maintaining secret pass word. d) To rectify the operational problems in the system. e) To ensure proper feeding of ticket stock into the computer received from stores. f) To ensure issue of Way Bills to the Conductors and receive the Way Bills along with cash. g) To take back up all the data as precautionary measure to restore the same in the event of break downs. h) To create master data for the new Conductors/Drivers and new buses.” (c) Taking advantage of his position, the petitioner generated duplicate way bills and got the tickets sold through a conductor by name Sri B.B. Rao and misappropriated the legitimate revenue of the respondent Corporation. (d) The total ticket stock available in the depot will be feed in the computer and the system permits to release the blocks serially. Every day, the in charge of the ticket stock gives the requisite stock to the Assistant Depot Clerks, who are entrusted with the duty of giving blocks to the Conductors. The Assistant Depot Clerks give the requisite ticket blocks to the Conductors, after entering in the Computer, the details such as Conductor's Staff No., Tray No, serial numbers of the blocks issued and number of blocks issued. The Assistant Depot Clerks generate a way bill from the computer with all the details and give to the Conductors. The Conductor should not possess any blocks in his tray, other than the blocks mentioned in the way bill. The Assistant Depot Clerks generate a way bill from the computer with all the details and give to the Conductors. The Conductor should not possess any blocks in his tray, other than the blocks mentioned in the way bill. (e) The Conductor after performing his duty has to write in the way bill, the closing numbers of all the ticket blocks and has to remit the amount accordingly. Every day, a separate statement by name MTD 4/R will be generated showing the details of all the blocks issued to the Conductors. (f) On 15.03.2002, the petitioner obtained three blocks of Rs.60/- denomination with numbers 036/582700, 036/582800 and 036/582900 from the ticket stock incharge, on the pretext of handing over to the Conductors. After obtaining the blocks from the stock incharge, the petitioner with his software skills meddled with the system and ensured that those blocks are not released as per their serial number and kept them as "Discrepancy blocks" i.e.. "omitted blocks". Because of improper shut down of the system or because of the wrong procedure adopted while generating the way bills, the blocks get omitted from the stock and the statement of MTD 4/R clearly shows the blocks omitted from the stock for that day. The system supervisor has to enter those blocks into the system again so that they are added to the stock. (g) The petitioner, who was working as System Supervisor, obtained three blocks of Rs. 60/- denomination from the incharge of the ticket stock and made them to be shown as "omitted blocks" and avoided re-entering of such blocks in the system. The petitioner handed over such blocks to Sri B.B.Rao, Conductor of Karimnagar-I depot by generating a duplicate way bill. Sri B.B. Rao, who was a Conductor of Karimnagar-I depot obtained way bill from Karimnagar I depot showing the details of all the blocks issued from the depot. The petitioner generated duplicate way bill in the name of Sri B.B.Rao with details of all blocks issued from Karimnagar-I depot and by adding the blocks of Rs. 60/- denomination of Karimnagar II depot. Sri B.B. Rao performed the duty with the duplicate way bill and sold out Rs. 60/- denomination blocks. The Conductor after performing the duty paid back the amount at Karimnagar-I depot as per the way bill generated at that depot and thus avoided paying the amount realized by the sale of Rs. 60/- denomination of Karimnagar II depot. Sri B.B. Rao performed the duty with the duplicate way bill and sold out Rs. 60/- denomination blocks. The Conductor after performing the duty paid back the amount at Karimnagar-I depot as per the way bill generated at that depot and thus avoided paying the amount realized by the sale of Rs. 60/- denomination blocks obtained from the Karimnagar II depot with the help of the petitioner. (h) In the same manner, two blocks of Rs.60/- denomination were sold out by the petitioner in collusion with Sri B.B. Rao. Even if the check is exercised it is very difficult for the checking squad to detect such fraud since all the blocks in the tray will be shown in the way bill. (i) On 8.4.2002, Sri V.K. Reddy, the Assistant Depot Clerk, observed that the petitioner was generating a way bill in the name of Sri B.B. Rao, who was a Conductor of Karimnagar 1 depot, and he reported the matter to the Senior Traffic Inspector. The Senior Traffic Inspector obtained a print out of the way bill prepared by the petitioner and went to Karimnagar-1 depot and verified with the way bill generated in the name of Sri B.B. Rao, at that depot. On verification, it was found that the way bill generated at Karimnagar II depot contained one block of Rs. 60/- denomination with number 036/582800. On verification, it was also found that MTD 4/R generated on 15.3.2002 did not contain the list of the blocks omitted from the stock. Thus, the petitioner taking advantage of his position generated MTD 4/R on 15.3.2002 and concealed the sheet which contains the list of blocks omitted from the stock. (j) On 11.4.2002, the Senior Traffic Inspector informed about the fraud to the incharge of the regional checking squad and requested to check the bus, in which Sri B.B.Rao is performing the duty. Accordingly, the checking squad checked the bus on 12.04.2002 while Sri B.B. Rao was conducting the bus bearing No.7899 on the route Boruvalli to Karimnagar. At the time of check, it was found that Sri B.B. Rao issued to the passengers, the tickets of Rs. 60/- denomination pertaining to the block number 036/582800, which is missing from Karimnagar II depot. Accordingly, the checking squad checked the bus on 12.04.2002 while Sri B.B. Rao was conducting the bus bearing No.7899 on the route Boruvalli to Karimnagar. At the time of check, it was found that Sri B.B. Rao issued to the passengers, the tickets of Rs. 60/- denomination pertaining to the block number 036/582800, which is missing from Karimnagar II depot. The checking officials confiscated the Way Bill, Statistical Return and the tickets issued by Sri B.B. Rao, and issued fresh Statistical Return (S.R.) and Xerox copy of Way Bill to him. (k) The checking officials after completing the formalities issued a charge memo bearing No.A0/346569, 570, 571, dated 12.4.2002, to Sri B.B. Rao, who offered his spot explanation admitting the irregularities. (l) Sri B.B. Rao, who was caught by the squad on 12.4.2002, while selling the tickets of Rs. 60/- denomination unauthorisedly, committed suicide by consuming poison in the late hours of 12.4.2002. The petitioner was found absconding from his duties from 13.04.2002 i.e., a day after the fraud was detected. The petitioner sent a Sick Certificate on 16.04.2002 i.e., after 48 hours of his absenting for his duties. The Senior Traffic Inspector, Karimnagar-Il depot submitted his report dated 18.04.2002 to the respondent. Based on the allegations made against the petitioner, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order, dated 18.04.2002 and issued a charge sheet framing four charges against the petitioner. (m) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 1.6.2002. The respondent was not convinced with the explanation and, in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, ordered a domestic enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, duly nominating the Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Regional Manager's Office, Karimnagar, as the Enquiry Officer, under intimation to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer addressed several enquiry intimations to the petitioner through RPAD, requesting him to attend the enquiry. However, the petitioner failed to attend the enquiry. An ex parte enquiry was conducted into the charges framed against the petitioner. The enquiry officer recorded the statements of Sri C.P. Rao, Depot Clerk (Earnings); Sri A.V. Reddy, Assistant Depot Clerk; Sri Jagadeshwar, Squad Incharge, RES/Karimnagar; Sri C.M. Reddy, TII; Sri A.R. Reddy, A.D.C.; Sri P.H. Rao, Superintendent (T); and Sri R.N. Rao, Assistant Manager (1). Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the enquiry officer recorded his findings and transmitted the file to the respondent. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the enquiry officer recorded his findings and transmitted the file to the respondent. (n) The respondent, based on the enquiry report and other evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The respondent addressed a letter dated 11.11.2002 to the petitioner by enclosing the enquiry proceedings and enquiry report, requesting him to submit his objections. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.12.2002. The respondent, not convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner, once again perused the entire records and came to the provisional conclusion that the punishment of removal from service was fit and proper. Accordingly, a show cause notice, dated 20.12.2002, was sent to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him. The petitioner, having acknowledged the receipt of the show cause notice of removal, failed to submit his explanation. The respondent once again reviewed the entire records available and came to the final conclusion and passed the proceedings dated 10.01.2003 removing the petitioner from service. (o) Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent, which was considered and rejected on merits through proceedings dated 20.02.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.67/2004 before the Labour Court and the same was dismissed on 20.10.2005. (p) The acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases held that even after the acquittal of the delinquent employee, the management is at liberty to take departmental action against the employee as per rules. In the present case, as held by the Labour Court, the respondent conducted a valid enquiry, duly following the rules and principles of natural justice, giving ample opportunity to the petitioner at every stage. 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner, having received the enquiry call letters dated 2.9.2002 and 17.9.2002, failed to attend the enquiry. As rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic consideration. On similar grounds of cash and ticket irregularities, earlier the petitioner was punished twice. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the Labour Court, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic consideration. On similar grounds of cash and ticket irregularities, earlier the petitioner was punished twice. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. The respondent conducted enquiry duly following the rules and principles of natural justice, giving ample opportunity to the petitioner. The award of the Labour Court is well-considered and well- reasoned and does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.46467 of 2013, stating that the sole petitioner had passed away on 08.07.2013 and sought permission to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased petitioner. The said application was allowed on 29.07.2022, pursuant to which, the legal representative of the deceased petitioner was brought on record as the 2 nd petitioner. 14. In the instant case, since the petitioner expired on 08.07.2013 during pendency of this writ petition, the question of reinstatement of the deceased petitioner does not arise. Therefore, this Court shall confine its examination to the issue of whether the respondent authorities adhered to the due procedure prescribed by law while removing the deceased petitioner from service. 15. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent authorities lodged a complaint against the petitioner at Karimnagar (I) Town Police Station on 17.04.2002, which was marked as Ex.P-1 in C.C.No.194 of 2002 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Karimnagar. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.04.2002. The authorities alleged that the petitioner was involved in theft of three ticket blocks valued at Rs.18,000/-, based on which, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.194 of 2002. 16. Simultaneously, the respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings and framed four charges against the petitioner. While both the criminal and departmental proceedings were pending, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 11.09.2002 seeking postponement of the departmental enquiry until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. However, without considering the petitioner’s request, the respondent authorities proceeded with the departmental enquiry. 16. Simultaneously, the respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings and framed four charges against the petitioner. While both the criminal and departmental proceedings were pending, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 11.09.2002 seeking postponement of the departmental enquiry until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. However, without considering the petitioner’s request, the respondent authorities proceeded with the departmental enquiry. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer, through letter No. 1/802(i)/2002-KRII, directed the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 30.10.2002. Despite this, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 25.10.2002 itself. 17. The said conduct of the respondent authorities clearly demonstrates that a proper and reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner, despite his acquittal in the corresponding criminal case. The petitioner submits that the witnesses examined in the domestic enquiry were the same as those examined in C.C.No.194 of 2002 before the J.M.F.C., Karimnagar. The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case i.e., C.C.No.194 of 2002 by judgment dated 30.07.2003. 18. Despite disclosing the acquittal in the appeal filed against the removal order, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 20.02.2004 as time-barred, without considering the acquittal of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner also preferred I.D.No.67 of 2004, which was dismissed on 20.10.2005, without proper appreciation of the evidence and law. 19. The issue for consideration in this case is whether the removal order passed by the authorities is legally sustainable, when the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case i.e., C.C.No.194 of 2002 and when both the departmental and criminal proceedings were based on the same set of facts and witnesses. 20. In support of his contentions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in G.M.TANK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER (Appeal (Civil) No.2582 of 2006) dated 10.05.2006, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows :- “In the instant case, the appellant joined the respondent in the year 1953. He was suspended from service on 8.2.1979 and got subsistence allowance of Rs.700/- p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary. On 15.10.1982 dismissal order was passed. The appellant has put in 26 years of service with the respondent i.e. from 1953-1979. The appellant would now superannuate in February, 1986. On the basis of the same charges and the evidence, the Department passed an order of dismissal on 21.10.1982 whereas the Criminal Court acquitted him on 30.1.2002. On 15.10.1982 dismissal order was passed. The appellant has put in 26 years of service with the respondent i.e. from 1953-1979. The appellant would now superannuate in February, 1986. On the basis of the same charges and the evidence, the Department passed an order of dismissal on 21.10.1982 whereas the Criminal Court acquitted him on 30.1.2002. However, as the Criminal Court acquitted the appellant on 30.1.2002 and until such acquittal, there was no reason or ground to hole the dismissal to be erroneous, any relief monetarily can be only w.e.f. 30.1.2002. But by then, the appellant had retired, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the order of dismissal without back wages. The appellant would be entitled to pension. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the judgment and order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil appln. No. 948 of 1983 as affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1085 of 2002 and allow this appeal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 21. Under the similar set of facts in RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023) dated 04.12.2023, the Apex Court observed as follows :- 27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M.Tank (supra). 22. In the present case, both the criminal and departmental proceedings arise from a similar set of facts, and the witnesses are also common. However, the respondent authorities have not properly considered the case of the petitioner. 23. A perusal of the order in the I.D. reveals that the Labour Court observed that the petitioner did not make any effort to stay the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. Moreover, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the show-cause notice was dismissed by this Court. 23. A perusal of the order in the I.D. reveals that the Labour Court observed that the petitioner did not make any effort to stay the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal case. Moreover, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the show-cause notice was dismissed by this Court. While dismissing the I.D., the Labour Court failed to take into consideration the said facts, which are not legally admissible. 24. Even, if the petitioner did not make efforts to obtain a stay of the departmental proceedings, the Labour Court cannot dismiss the I.D. on that ground alone, nor on the ground that the writ petition against the show-cause notice was dismissed. Such reasoning is not legally sustainable because, generally, when the High Court dismisses a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice, it merely directs the petitioner to approach the Court after completion of the enquiry and the passing of a final order. In the said I.D., the Labour Court also observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that even after acquittal of the delinquent employee by the criminal Court, the Management is at liberty to take departmental action against the employee, after conducting a domestic enquiry. 25. In the similar circumstances, there exists a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that where departmental and criminal proceedings arise out of the same set of facts, and the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges, the authorities cannot, without considering the acquittal, proceed to punish the petitioner on the same set of facts. 26. The Labour Court, without due consideration of the petitioner’s acquittal in the present case, erroneously dismissed the I.D. confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court’s Award are liable to be set aside. 27. The removal order dated 10.01.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority, and the Award dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the deceased petitioner and if appropriate, impose a lesser penalty than removal from service and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the deceased petitioner and if appropriate, impose a lesser penalty than removal from service and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Due to the death of the sole petitioner, his legal representative i.e., 2 nd petitioner would get the benefits, if she is otherwise eligible. Based on the above order and pursuant to such re-consideration, if the deceased petitioner would have become entitled to any benefits, the same shall be considered and granted to the second petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee, within a period of three months thereafter. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.