APHC010169952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8879/2025 Between: M.a.j.m. Singh, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 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 order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner through Impugned Articles of Charge in C.NO.3397/A6/2024 dated 25.01.2025, without conclusion of the trial in the Criminal Case vide C.C.SR.No.2205 of 2025 on the file of the Hon’ble Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapuram (Crime No.193 of 2024) and SC.No.5 of 2025 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court, Bheemavaram (Crime No.232 of 2024) is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from violation of law declared by the Constitutional Courts in the same subject matter and set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The petitioner, while working as Head Constable at Poduru Police Station, West Godavari District, was implicated in Crime No.193 of 2024 under Sections 127(2), 118(1), 318(4), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS Act on the file of the Narsapuram Police Station, West Godavari District and Crime No.232 of 2024 under Sections 329(4), 75(2), 351(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 12 POCSO Act on the file of the Narsapuram Town Police Station, West Godavari District. In both the cases, charge sheets have been filed, and they are pending before the competent Criminal Courts for trial. 3. In relation to very same incident, petitioner was issued charge memo vide C.No.3397/A6/2024, dated 25.01.2025, stating out one article of charge 3 in Annexure-I and listing witnesses in Annexure-III. However, the petitioner is yet to submit statement of defense. In view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings, disclosing his defense in departmental proceedings at this stage prejudice his rights in case before competent Criminal Court. Since, criminal proceeding in aforesaid cases are pending for trial, subject matter of departmental proceedings also being same, list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-III and those mentioned before Criminal Court filed along with charge sheet more or less being similar, it ought not to proceed with departmental proceedings until the trial in aforesaid cases completed. 4. Heard V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents. 5. In Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and Another1 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. 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 4 (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. (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. 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 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 5 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 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.” 7. In the case at hand, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in ACB trap in the criminal cases. 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 and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 8. 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. 9. 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. 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 6 10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narsapuram and the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bheemavaram shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.SR.No.2205 of 2025 (Crime No.193 of 2024) and SC.No.5 of 2025 (Crime No.232 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 that the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. 11. 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. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 04.04.2025 SNI 7 215 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8879/2025 Date: 04.04.2025 SNI