IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7873 OF 2025 Between: Ramavathi Chinna Babu Naik, S/o. Lakshma Naik Aged 42 Years, Occ Police Constable, PC. 1316 V.V Palem Police Station, V.V. palem, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi At Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1ST respondent, in proceeding with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by issuing Charge Memo in C.No. 19/PR-A9/2024 dated 24.11.2024 for the same set facts of facts for which C.C.No. 496 of 2024, for Trail before the Court of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddaluru, is pending as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo in till the conclusion of trail for r the same set facts of facts in C.C.No. 496 of 2024, pending before the of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddaluru, as well as the Court AP Police Standing Orders 179 (2) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the departmental enquiry against the petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo in C.No. 19/PR-A9/2024 dated; 24.11.2024 issued by the Is respondent for the same set of facts for which C.C.No. 496 of 2024, pending for trail before the Court of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddaluru, is pending Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Order % APHC010154182025 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: 7873/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Ramavathi Chinna Babu Naik AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The Superintendent Of Police and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO 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/s;- ..to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1^^ respondent in proceeding with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by issuing Charge Memo in C.No. 19/PR-A9/2024 dated 24.11.2024 for the same set facts offsets for which C. C.No. 496 of 2024 for Trail before the Court of Add!. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddaluru is pending as illegal arbitrary unjust violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo in C.No. 19/PR-A9/2024 dated 24.11.2024 till the conclusion of trial for the same set facts of facts in C. C.No. 496 of 2024 pending before the Court of Add!. Judicial First Class Magistrate at Giddaluru as well as the AP Police Standing Crders 179 (2) and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard Sri Pamarthi Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable and he was discharging his duties as such, at the instance of his wife, FIR.No.66 of 2024 dated 02.08.2024 was registered under Section 85 BNS, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequently, upon filing of charge sheet, the same got numbered as C.C.No.496 of 2024 and is pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddaluru. 4. The petitioner was issued a charge memo vide C.No.19/PR-A9/2024 da^cr24.11.2024 for inquiry of charge based on his involvement in Criminal arising out of FIR No.66 of 2024. Petitioner also submitted explanation to the aforesaid charge memo and disciplinary proceedings are stated to be pending. As pending trial, two criminal proceedings, the person charged on same set of allegations is being inquired into, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred present writ petition seeking stay of departmental proceedings. case 5. 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 Umitecf^, wherein at para No.22, the Hon’bie Apex Court 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. If the departmental proceedings and the criminal 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. (ii) case are (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal caee 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 ^ 1999 (3) see 679 launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge- sheet. 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. (iv) (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.” 6. 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 Others^, 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 ^ (2019) 6 see 155 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.” However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were 7. initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.66 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 85 BNS, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 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. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^, the 8. 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. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India’s 9. case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. ^(2016) 9 see 491 4 10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddaluru, shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C. 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 that 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. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the 11. admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. M As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand Sd/- M SRiNiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department Secretariat, Velagapudi At Amaravathi, Guntur District. One CC to SRI PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] Two^CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Three CD Copies 2. 3. / 4. 5. gsg \ HIGH COURT DATED: 26/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7873 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WP AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS