APHC010173052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9102/2025 Between: G. Rajababu ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “to declare the action of the Superintendent of Police,Bhimavaram, in issuing Article of Charges in Crime No.3/Major/A6/2022 dt.17.1.2024 under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S & CCA Rules based on the FIR, Charge Sheet and Statement of Police and 161 Statement which are one and the same before the Criminal Court in CC No. 429/2022 and by passing rejection orders in C.No.14/OEPR/2024 dt.24.3.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the 2 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 Supreme Court reported in 2006 (5)SCC 446 and consequentially declare that the respondents cannot proceed the departmental proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case in CC No. 429/2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Junior Magistrate,Palakol and to pass appropriate order or orders.” 2. The petitioner, who is working as police constable, has been arrayed as accused in Crime No.242 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506 I.P.C. at the instance of his wife. On filing of the charge sheet, the same has been numbered as C.C.No.429 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol, and is pending for trail. 3. Simultaneously, the petitioner is also proceeding with departmental enquiry and has been issued a charge memo on 17.01.2024 on the allegations that he is involved in Crime No.242 of 2022. The petitioner has submitted explanation refuting the allegations under charge memo and also by referring to pendency of the crime proceedings, requested the disciplinary authority to await disposal of the case. However, the same came to be refused by memorandum dated 24.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent. 4. Heard Sri A.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 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. (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 11999 (3) SCC 679 4 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 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 - I, 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 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 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 5 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 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 Criminal Case. 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. 3(2016) 9 SCC 491 6 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 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. 10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.429 of 2022 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 counsel. No costs. 7 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 08.04.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 09.04.2025 B/o.Pmk 8 CGR, J W.P.No.9102 of 2025 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9102 of 2025 08-04-2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 09.04.2025 B/o.Pmk