APHC010120552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6979/2025 Between: Manupudi Srinivas ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to direct the respondents not to proceed enquiry pursuant to the charge memo issued by the 3rd respondent vide RC.No.1742-A4/2024, dated 24/01/2025 till finalization of the criminal case in FIR No.145/2024, dated 16/12/2024, 2 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada, as the allegations in the criminal case and as well as departmental enquiry on the same set of allegations as otherwise the petitioner will be put to heavy and irreparable loss and to pass such other orders” 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents. 3. On 19.03.2025, this Court passed the following order: “Learned Government Pleader for Services-II takes notice for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been issued charge memo vide Rc.No.1742- A4/2024, dated 24.01.2025 with two Articles of Charges, inter alia, alleging that petitioner was found to have actively facilitated in leakage of Summative Assessment-1 (SA-1) class 10 Mathematics question paper, which constitutes serious breach of confidentiality and secondly, that Crime No.145 of 2024 was registered against him and others for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 318(4) of the BNS. Sections 66, 66D and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair means) Act, 1997. 3 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 Apparently, the charges mentioned above are leveled against the petitioner, in pursuance to registration of Crime No.145 of 2024, which is pending investigation and charge sheet is yet to be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment in W.A.No.467 of 2024, when there is substantive criminal proceedings in progress, in which investigation is going on, initiation of departmental proceedings against very same charges is unwarranted. Learned Assistant Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions. List the matter on 26.03.2025 in the adjourned motion list. Meanwhile, there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings, in pursuance to charge memo vide Rc.No.1742-A4/2024, dated 24.01.2025.” 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record written instructions dated 26.03.2025, wherein relevant paragraphs read as under: “In this regard, I submit that based on the radio message received from the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada City, it has been observed that the petitioner was arrested on 29.12.2024 in connection with the leakage of the SA-I, X Class 4 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 Mathematics question paper by the AO, SCERT. He was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days on 30.12.2024, and FIR No.145/2024 was registered against him at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada, NTR District. Consequently, as per Rule 8(2)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from the date of his detention vide Procs. Rc. No.1742-A4/2024, dated 31.12.2024. Additionally, departmental proceedings under Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, were initiated against him, and a charge memo was issued vide Procs. Rc. No.1742- A4/2024, dated 24.01.2025. I further submit that the petitioner submitted his written defense statement on 05.02.2025, denying the charges. Consequently, in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, Sri P. Nageswara Rao, Assistant Director, O/o DEO, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, and Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, Mandal Educational Officer-1, Mandapeta Mandal, was appointed as the Presenting Officer to conduct the enquiry. The detailed enquiry report is awaited. It is to be noted that the enquiry will be based on the information from the Police Department and will not be conducted independently.” 5 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 1 (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679 2 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446 3 (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 979 4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.467 of 2024 to contend that as petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on criminal case which was instituted against him, pending investigation and filing charge sheet therein, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with. The Division Bench while dealing with the aforesaid issue has summarized law on this aspect in Paras 10 to 12, which read as under: “10) The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another1 and G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and others2 has subsequently been appreciated by a larger bench consisting of three judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Another3 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after appreciating the factual and legal components of the conundrum has categorically upheld the correctness of law as laid down in M. Paul Anthony case (1 Supra) and the Hon’ble Apex court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad case (3 supra) has been pleased to observe and hold in ‘Para 20’ as under: 6 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 20. The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case (supra) on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case where a question arose for consideration as to whether the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be continued simultaneously and this Court answered in para 22 as under:- “The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge- sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. 7 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 11) In the above background, we have appreciated the ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the Respondents. Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are:- 6. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. In his written show cause to this Memorandum, the Delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending him, arising from the same set of transactions. 7. The appellant-bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer who, in his report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The Delinquent Employee, again denying the charges, filed a response to that but was eventually dismissed from the services at the bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28th March 2003. The departmental appeal filed by him, after due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed on 16th August 2004. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal, the delinquent employee 8 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 4 (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 675 filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.12 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court. The question before the said Court was: whether, in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 20023, the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee (respondent) herein ought to have been stayed or not.” The above paras would reveal that facts on hand and the facts involved in the ruling, as recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are at a complete variance. In the instant case, the appellant has approached this Court at the stage of framing of articles of charges. On the contrary, the facts recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India and others v. P.Zadenga4 would reveal that the delinquent employee had participated in the enquiry and thereafter has proceeded to contest the correctness of the enquiry. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paras 31 to 35 as recorded in paragraph 6 hereinabove. 12) This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’s case (4 supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the said case. A close perusal of the above ruling does not also disclose any observations which would derogate from law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony’s Case (1 supra) and as upheld by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s case.” 9 CGR, J W.P. No.6979 of 2025 5. Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of by staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated by 3rd respondent in pursuance to the charge memo vide Rc.No.1742-A4/2024, dated 24.01.2025, till filing of charge sheet by jurisdictional police in FIR No.145 of 2024 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Vijayawada and examination and cross- examination of all the witness. In the event, charges and witnesses are different as noted by the larger bench in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s Case, it shall be open for the respondent – employer to proceed with the enquiry strictly in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 26.03.2025 SS