IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12586 OF 2025 Between: Sodum Venugopal Babu, S/o Srinivasulu (Late), Aged about 62 Years, Occupation Retired Forest Range Officer, R/o 2-250E 4-5-9-20-1, Marpuri Veedi, Reddy’s Colony, Madanapali, Annamayya District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Spl. Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment Forest Science and Technology Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chief Wild Life Warden, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Guntur District. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur Circle, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. 3. 4. ...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 bd pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3rd respondent in initiation of the' departmental enquiry vide the impugned Charge Memo. Ref.No.EFS02-19021/36/202Wig- 1 Dated 26.05.2024 for tile same set of facts/allegations on which a Criminal Case in C.C.No. 9 of 2025 is pending adjudication before Hon’ble Special Judge for SPE and ACB Case Nellore, instead of awaiting for the decision of Criminal Court, as illegal arbitrary and quite contrary to well established legal principles in the case of CAPT. M.PAUL ANTHONY Vs BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (1999) 3 sec 679 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 to 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 26.05.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent. 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including enquiry Charge Ref. No. EFS02-19021/36/2021 Vig-1, dated: 26.05.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent till the completion of Criminal Case vide C.C.No 9 of 2025 pending before Spl. Judge for SPE& ACB Cases, Nellore pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Order: / APHC010249582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BE0 [3506] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12586/2025 Between: Sodum Venugopal Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRIMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I r 2 HCGR.J W.P.No.l2586of2025 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3^'^ respondent in initiation of the departmental enquiry vide the impugned Charge Memo.Ref.No.EFS02-19021/36/202/Vig-1, Dated 26.05.2024 for the same set of facts/allegations on which a Criminal Case in C.C.No.9 of 2025 is pending adjudication before Honble Special Judge for SPE and ACB Case, Nellore, instead of awaiting for the decision of Criminal Court, as illegal arbitrary and quite contrary to well established legal principles in the case of CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY Vs. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (1999) 3 see 679 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 to 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 26.05.2024 issued by the 3'^^ respondent and pass such other order or orders....” Heard Sri Sriman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Pleader for Services-I for 2. learned Assistant Government respondents. Petitioner, while working as Forest Range Officer, was implicated in Crime No.06/RCT-TCT/2021, dated 13.09.2021, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon filing of charge sheet, the same has been numbered as C.C.No.9 of 2025 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, which is stated to be pending issued memo vide Rc.No.255/2024/M2, dated 27.05.2024 on the allegation that he being involved in a criminal case as referred to above, for the same incident. 3. Petitioner has also been trial. 3 HCGR,J W.P. No.12586 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses 4. as per Annexure-lll of charge memo and list of witnesses in the charge sheet are more or less same. If the petitioner is allowed to divulge defense, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance upon M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited^, wherein it was observed thus: 22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (i) (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 (1999) 3 see 679 4 HCGR.J W.P. No. 12586 of 2025 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.” (V) 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 Others^, wherein at Para No. 17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “17. It is well settled that a departmental proceedings 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 proceedings, 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. ^(2019) 6 see 155 5 HCGR.J WP.No.l2586of2025 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, case at hand, the departmental proceedings were 6. initiated in view of petitioner’s involvement in ACB case. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-lll and list of witnesses in the charge sheet are similar. If the departmental proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner must disclose his defense and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. In State Bank of India and Others \/s. Neelam Nag and Anr^, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions 7. Court (trial 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 the State Bank of India’s case{supra-3), this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to charge memo for a period of one year. 9. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of one year. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.9 of 2025 as ■’(2016) 9 see 491 HCGRJ W.P.N0.1258G of 2025 expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year since the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are stayed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. 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 (supra-1). 10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. (a) The petitioner shall file copy of this order before the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, Veiagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2 The Spl. Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment Forest Science and Technology Department, A.P Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chief Wild Life Warden, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur, Guntur District. 4. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Ananthapur Circle, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri. Sriman, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Services I ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to 7. Three CD Copies vna HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12586 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS