APHC010137432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7045/2025 Between: Sk Mahaboob Subhani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to declare the action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings in C.NO.19/PR/2023, dated 19-08-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent Inspector General of Police, 2 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 South Costal Zone, Guntur Range, Guntur, pending the criminal trial in Crime No.64 of 2022 of Disha Police Station, Nellore (Charge Sheet filed vide PRC No.57/2024 on the file of the Hon’ble Addl Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore as the same is arbitrary contrary to law illegal against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance until conclusion of the criminal trial in Crime No 64 of 2022 of Disha Police Station Nellore Charge Sheet filed vide PRC No 57/2024 on the file of the Honble Addl Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class Special Mobile Court Nellore and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri Sk.Mahaboob Subhani, leaned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 03.07.2018. Based on report lodged on 28.09.2022, Crime No.64 of 2022 was registered under Sections 498-A, 313, 342, 307 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before Disha (U) Police Station, Nellore Town. After filing of charge sheet, the case has been numbered as PRC No.57/2024 and is awaiting committal to Sessions Court. That being so, petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.10.2022 in view of 3 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 1 (1999) 3 SCC 679 involvement of aforesaid crime and later, he came to be reinstated into service on 23.12.2022. The petitioner was issued proceedings dated 23.12.2022 proposing to hold departmental enquiry in respect of articles of charge stated therein for imposing Major penalty under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Preliminary Enquiry Report submitted by 4th respondent dated 07.06.2023, annexing the list of statements of witnesses as Annexures II & III. Now, having received the said charge memo, the petitioner has sought for time and the matter is pending. As pending trial of criminal proceedings, the present charge on the same set of allegations is being inquired into, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to stay the departmental proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulged defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and placed reliance upon the judgment of M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1 , wherein at para No.22, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: 4 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 “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 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 chargesheet. (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, 5 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 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.” 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader 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 v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others2 , 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 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 6 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 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.” 6. However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.64 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 313, 342, 307 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act before Disha (U) Police Station, Nellore Town. The list of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet and witnesses in departmental proceedings are more or less the same. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 7. 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. 7 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nellore, shall complete the criminal trial in the above PRC 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. 10. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 CGR, J W.P. No.7045 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 21.03.2025 SS