JUDGMENT
Deshmukh D.K., J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court, dt. 1.12.1997 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was engaged as a driver by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereafter referred to as “the M.S.R.T.C.”). The vehicle he was driving was involved in an accident. This act was held to be misconduct and departmental inquiry was held. He was found guilty and punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed. The Industrial Court has held that the M.S.R.T.C. has not engaged in any unfair labour practice in imposing that punishment.
2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly submitted that the Industrial Court has erroneously held that the witness Mr. Wakode is an expert witness. According to the learned Counsel, Mr. Wakode is not an expert witness, but he was the Presenting Officer. The learned Counsel is not in a position to point out any ground raised in the petition to that effect. Obviously, this ground cannot be permitted to be argued. The next submission that was made by the learned Counsel is that because in the criminal trial the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court, the departmental inquiry could not have been held on the same charge. In support of that proposition, he relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.L.R. H.C.Bom page 861, Chandrakant Raoji Gaonkar v. Bombay Port Trust and Ors. Perusal of that judgment shows that in that case evidence in criminal trial and the departmental inquiry was the same and therefore, the Court has held that two different conclusions cannot be reached on the basis of the same evidence. In the present case, admittedly the evidence in the criminal trial was different. So far as the departmental inquiry is concerned, only one witness was examined namely Wakode and on the basis of his deposition and record, the Inquiry Officer recorded his finding. Merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal trial, his employer is not prohibited from holding departmental inquiry on the same charge and the Inquiry Officer can also reach a conclusion different from the one which is reached by the criminal Court. Taking over all view of the mater, therefore, I do not find any substance in the petition. The petition fails and it is dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs.