IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10054 OF 2025 Between: Satish, S/o G.Visweswara Rao Aged 30 Years, Occ: R.S.I Sub Inspector), 6th Betallion, APSP, Mangalagiri Guntur G.Bhanu (Reserve District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of AP, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Inspector General of Police, APSP, Batallions, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. A.P 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range IV, APSP Batallions, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. A.P. 4. The Enquiry Officer/Commandant, 5th Batallions, APSP, Viziangaram, Vizianagaram District. A.P ...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 the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents, in proceeding with the declare departmental enquiry and pass final orders against the petitioner by issuing Charge Memo Rc. No. 479/A2/PR- 06/2023-24 dated. 29.01.2024, for the same set facts of facts for which Criminal case PRC No. 14/2024, pending trial before the Court Of Honorable VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada Krishna District, is pending as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry and not to pass final orders against the petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo Rc.No 479/A2/PR- 06/2023-24 dated.29.01.2024, till the conclusion of trail for the same set facts of in Criminal Case PRC No. 14/2024, pending trial before the Court Of Honorable VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada Krishna District, as well as the AP Police Standing Orders. 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 and pass final orders against the petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo Rc.No 479/A2/PR-06/202 3-24 dated:29.01.2024, issued by the 3rd respondent for the same set of facts for which Criminal case PRC No: 14/2024, pending trial before the Court Of Honorable VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate At Vijayawada Krishna District, is pending. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. I RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: 4 APHC010198562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10054/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER G.Bhanu Satish AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.1 RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I r y 2 HCGR, J W.P. No. 10054 of 2025 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 and 4 respondents, in proceeding with the departmental enquiry and pass final orders against the petitioner by issuing Charge Memo Rc.No.479/A2/PR-06/2023-24 dated 29.01.2024, for the same set of facts for which Criminal case PRC No. 14/2024, pending trial before the Court Of Honorable VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District, is pending as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry and not to pass final orders against the petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo Rc.No.479/A2/PR-06/2023-24 dated.29.01.2024, till the conclusion of trail for the same set facts of in Criminal Case PRC No.14/2024, pending trial before the Court of Honorable VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada, Krishna District, as well as the AP Police Standing Orders and pass such other order or orders...” Heard Sri I.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner th 2. and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondents. 3. Petitioner, while working as Reserve Sub Inspector in APSP Mangalagiri, was suspended on 23.11.2023 on the allegation that he was involved in Crime No.677 of 2023 of Penamaluru (U) Police Station, Krishna District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered '^s PRC No.14 of 2024 on the file of learned VI Additional EP 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.l0054of2025 rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Later, the 3 dated 29.01.2024, framing two respondent issued charge memo charges, essentially emanating from the aforesaid offences. For which, the petitioner submitted explanation on 26.03.2024 denying Now, the 3^'^ respondent by proceedings dated 08.08.2024 has appointed the 4^'' respondent as Inquiry Officer to conduct the same. departmental inquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the 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. Gold Mines Limited', wherein at para No.22, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: authorities Bharat “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 nature which involves complicated questions of is of a grave , law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. 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 of the case launched against the (iii) offence, the nature (1999) 3 see 679 ; 4 HCGR, J W.P. No. 10054 of 2025 r' 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. 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.” Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would (iv) (V) 5. 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 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 (2019) 6 see 155 5 HCCR, J W.P.No.l0054of2025 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.677 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 and 506 of IPC. 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 Ant^ 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. 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 VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, shall commit the above PRC to the competent Sessions Court, so as to enable the -• -=%af (2016) 9 see 491 6 HCGR, J W.P. No. 10054 of 2025 Session Judge to complete the trial 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 10. at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of AP, Secretariat Buildingds, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Inspector General of Police, APSP, Batallions, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. A.P 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range IV, APSP Batallions, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. A.P. 4. The Enquiry Officer/Commandant, 5th Batallions, APSP, Viziangaram, Vizianagaram District. A.P. fe p. 5. One CC to Sri. I Ravindra Babu Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC A \ f- HIGH COURT DATED:22/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10054 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WP AT THE ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT COSTS