APHC010126122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6345/2025 Between: Pamudurthi Abdul Rahiman, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: The present Writ petition is filed for following relief: “….issue an order or a direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in initiating the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in C.No.4552/A6/PR/2024, dated 19.02. 2025 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional when the subject matter, statements and witnesses of the said departmental enquiry and the subject matter, statements and witnesses of the criminal case in 2 C.C.No.672 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ananthapuramu are one and the same, and in mentioning the wrong name of the alleged victim and the accused number in Annexure-I Statement of Articles of Charge and consequently to quash the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in C.No.4552/A6/PR/2024 dated 19.02.2025 and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri S.Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. A charge memo vide proceedings No.C.No.4552/A6/PR/2024, dated 19.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner. As per the statement of article of charge, the petitioner has indulged in outraging of modesty by abusing his elder brother’s daughter, for which, a Crime No.51 of 2024 was registered on the file of Ananthapuramu II Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 read with 34 of IPC which was in violation of Rule 3 Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner is already subjected to Criminal prosecution in C.C.No.672 of 2024 on the file of learned First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, in which charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 323, 354 read with 34 of IPC and he is arrayed as accused No.1. 3. The learned Trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences mentioned above and summons are issued to the accused. 3 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-III and the list of witnesses filed along with the charge sheet are mostly similar. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceed with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent authorities are proceeding with the departmental inquiry. 6. In Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and Another 1 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 22 observed as follows; “22. 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 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 4 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. (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.” 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on the other hand, would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the inquiry simultaneously and placed reliance upon the judgment of Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others 2 wherein at Para No.17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “17. It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we are concerned in the present matter can never be said to be amounting to contempt of 2 92019) 6 SCC 155 5 court even if the criminal proceedings were pending. The allegations made against Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable.” 8. In the case at hand, the list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-III and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly similar. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 9. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr3, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order. 10. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. 11. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned learned First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu shall complete the criminal trial in the above 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 6 C.C.No.672 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is needless to mention here the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul Anthony’s case. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date:25.03.2025 LSP 7 158 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.6345 of 2025 Date: 25.03.2025 LSP