SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) The petitioner after dismissal from service vide order dated 29.09.1988 approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 576 of 1996, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.05.1997. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the appellate authority which dismissed the appeal on 10.05.1999. In the meantime, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.1995, he was acquitted from criminal charges in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1992/41 of 1993, in which he was accused of committing offences under Section 376, 446 and 511 I.P.C. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7999 of 1999 which was disposed of by an order dated 21.01.2016, directing the disciplinary authority to take a fresh decision considering petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case, in the light of judgment in Divisional Controller, Karnataka, State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 . The disciplinary authority has now passed order dated 08.06.2016. This is the order, which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present proceeding.
(3.) Referring to decision in M.G. Vittal Rao case, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 08.06.2016 has been passed in breach of the order passed by the writ Court. It is contended that order passed in the domestic enquiry which was initiated on registration of a criminal case was quashed by the writ Court and consequently, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service. In essence, contention is that the charges in the domestic enquiry and before the criminal court were identical and therefore, acquittal in the criminal case would result in reinstatement in service.;