I ^ r-t! APHC010303692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) -} THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY^ WRIT PETITION NO: 15380 OF 2025 Between: Vallem Venkata Rangaiah, S/o. China Ramaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ Asst. Manager (Under Suspension) Central Bank, The Kurnool District Co-Operative Atmakur Branch, R/o. H.No. 6-145, Sunkulamma Kottala Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer and Disciplinary Authority, Having office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, The Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Having office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Atmakur Branch, Nandyal District, A.P. 4. Sri C. Thrinatha Reddy, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged about not known, Occ Assistant General Manager, DCG Bank, Head Office, Kurnool, The Enquiry Officer Bank Ltd., Atmakur Branch, Nandyal District, A.P Kurnool District Cooperative Central ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in passing proceedings vide Estt. Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26 dated 19-06-2025 and rejecting the request of the Petitioner to Stay the Departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner in Charge Memo bearing Ref. No. Estt / Memos and Charge Memos file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024 during the pendency of Criminal Case vide FIR No. 220 of 2024 the file of Atmakur Police Station, Nandyal District and directing the Petitioner to attend the oral enquiry vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 vide Ref. No. Estt. Section / Atmakur Branch / 2025-26 and proceeding with the enquiry of departmental the proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner. 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 proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 vide Ref. Branch / 2025-26 in Charge Memo Ref. No. Estt / Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: No. Estt. Section / Atmakur 7 * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 15380 of 2025 % 04.09.2025 # 1) Vallem Venkata Rangaiah, S/o Chinna Ramaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occupation: Assistant Manager (under Suspension), The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank, Atmakur Branch, R/o H.No.6-145, Sunkulamma Kottala Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P., Petitioner Versus $ The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and Disciplinary- Authority, Having Office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P., and 3 others .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar ! Counsel for the Respondents ; 1) Koteswara Rao Mummaneni 2) Govt. Pleader for Services II < Gist: Disciplinary enquiry cannot stalled during the pendency of FIR. > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (1999) 3 see 679 2) (1996) 6 see 417 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 15380 of 2025 #Vallem Venkata Rangaiah, S/o Chinna Ramaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occupation: Assistant Manager (under Suspension), The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank, Atmakur Branch, R/o H.No.6-145, Sunkulamma Kottala Vennpenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P., Versus Petitioners $ The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and Disciplinary Authority, Having Office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P., and 3 others DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.09.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No • 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ? Yes/No I THY VIJAY, J APHC010303692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15380/2025 Between: 1.VALLEM VENKATA RANGAIAH, S/0. CHINA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC ASST. MANAGER (UNDER SUSPENSION), THE KURNOOL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK. ATMAKUR BRANCH, R/0. H.NO. 6-145, SUNKULAMMA PAMULAPADU MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. VEMPENTA VILLAGE, KOTTALA ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. 2.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, HAVING OFFICE AT ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. HAVING OFFICE AT 3.THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., ATMAKUR BRANCH, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. 2 known to PETITIONER, aged ABOUT NOT KNOWN OCC ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, DCG BANK HEAD DISTRirr'^^'^'^n enquiry OFFICER, KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD ATMAKUR BRANCH, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P ...RESPONDENT(S): th., i'" Constitution of India praying Hioh therewith, the igh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of more ^ Mandamus, declarino the Se't" Mt Respondents in passing proceedings vide Estt Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26 dated 19-06-2025 and rejecting initiated''^**- °! rlf® P®''t'°ner to stay the Departmental enquir^ initiated against the Petitioner in Charge Memo bearing Ref NoLw Memos and Charge Memos file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024 during the pendency of Criminal Case vide FIR No 220 of 2024 o„ the file A,ma„ur Police Station, Nandyal District and directing the 18/06/2025 dated vide Ref. No. Estt. Section/Atmakur Branch/2025-26 «lel^'°T. departmental proceedings as legal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the of the°"rimin T' ''^P^dmental enquiry till the conclusion the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner and pass such other order. LA NO: 1 OF 2n9./i on Petition under Section X praying that in the the High Court may be pleased to stay the departmental initiated against the Petitioner vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 R f NO e" Branch/2025-26 in Charg^Memo W12/202finri™^"'°° K file/2024-25, dated vjl/12/2024 and pass such other order. proceedings 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PS PSURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI 2.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 1 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.15380 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings vide Estt.Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26, dated 19.06.2025 issued by Respondents rejecting the request of the Petitioner to stay the Departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo bearing Ref.No.Estt.,/Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file/2024-25, dated 31.12.2024 during pendency of criminal vide FIR.No.220 of 2024 on the file of the Atmakur Police Station, Nandyal District, as illegal and arbitrary. case 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as Staff Assistant on 02.05.2016 in the Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (Respondent No.1) and was promoted as Assistant Manager in September, 2022. While so, a preliminary enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner on 30.09.2024 on certain irregularities pertaining to deficit cash balance in Atmakur Branch. After preliminary enquiry, the Chief Manager of Respondent No.1 was appointed as Enquiry Officer to furnish a report with regard to irregularities in Atmakur Branch of Respondent No.1 Bank. 3. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted on 01.10.2024 to verify all the aspects relating to misappropriation of bank funds furnish report. On the basis of the and preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Committee, a Charge Memorandum was issued to the Petitioner on 31.12.2024 vide Proceedings No.Estt./Memo's & Charge Memo’s File/2024-25 in which 7 Articles of Charges framed against the Petitioner. were 4. In substance, the charge against the Petitioner was that due to the misconduct, the financial loss to a tune of Rs.78,77,767/- was caused to Respondent No.1 bank. Before issuing the Charge Memorandum, a criminal complaint was lodged by the Deputy General Manager of Respondent No.1 Bank before Atmakur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 344 R/w 3(5) BNS, 66-D iTA-2000-2008 and the complaint was registered as F.I.R.No.220/2024, dated 05.10.2024. 5. After issuance of the Charge Memorandum, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 19.06.2025 requesting to stop proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry in view of the criminal corriplaint registered against him. The representation of the 3 Petitioner was rejected vide Estt.Section/Atmakur Branch/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 6. In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3, it was contended that there was a deficit cash balance of Rs.78,77,767/- and the loss was attributed to gross negligence and failure of duty by the Petitioner as Passing Officer and Cashier Sri S. Althaf Hussain. It is also stated that the Petitioner was immediately suspended in terms of the Staff Service Regulations. It is further stated that in Preliminary Enquiry Report, dated 02.11.2024, it was observed as follows; (i) The Cashier Scroll Book was neither verified nor attested by the Passing Officer (Petitioner herein) daily, which he was bound to; (ii) Physical Cash was not at all verified and not tallied daily, and transactions were not registered in the Passing Officer’s Scroll Register on September 26 and 21, 2024 which is a primary duty of the Passing Officer which he utterly failed to perform; (Hi) The Petitioner “negligently authorized the fictitious transactions of Cash Deposits received and the cash payments made”. His careless authorization of fictitious deposits entered by the Cashier (main accused) allowed the Cashier to transfer funds to his personal accounts, demonstrating the Petitioner’s complete negligence in performing of his legitimate duties and he was utterly failed in safeguarding the public money. 7. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that the negligence of the Petitioner is not mere procedurai but with a pre-planned motive knowing fuliy well about the consequences of the misdeeds. It is further stated that the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the Charge Memorandum and the same was not found satisfactory and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry. It is further stated that a perusal of Charge Memorandum and F.I.R would disclose regarding misappropriation of funds, but the scope of enquiry and investigation are completely different and hence sought for rejection of the Writ Petition. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied Clause 10.2.2 of the Staff Service Regulations for District in the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short “Service Regulations’), which states that in cases involving criminal trial and charges of grave nature, the Management should await the decision of the trial Court and stay the misconduct of the employee pending decision of the trial Court on the same fact, so that the defence is not prejudiced. The learned counsel would further submit that if the charge in the criminal case and the disciplinary enquiry is one and the same, the disciplinary enquiry ought to be stalled till the criminal case is concluded. Q. upon Co operative Central Bank 5 The learned Senior Counsel Smt. Sesha Rajyam would submit 9. that the scope of enquiry is totally different in criminal case and the disciplinary enquiry and the nature of charges against the Petitioner in the departmental proceedings are nothing to do with the criminal case and therefore she submits that the Writ Petition is misconceived. 10. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that to compare the similarity in the Charge Memorandum and the criminal case, the charge sheet should have been filed in the criminal Court and only on comparison of similarity in the nature of charge, oral and documentary evidence, the disciplinary enquiry can be stayed, but the disciplinary enquiry cannot be stayed merely because F.I.R is registered against the Petitioner. 11. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Clause 10.2.2 of Service F^egulations relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner also speaks of difference of the disciplinary enquiry when on same and identical charges criminal trial is being proceeded with by the concerned criminal Court. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the said Clause would not have any application at the stage of F.I.R. 6 12. Having heard the consideration is whether the Petitioner can be stalled respective counsel, the issue that falls for disciplinary enquiry on account of criminal complaint? against the 13. Reasoning: In the charge memorandum. 7 articles of charge which are principally with regard were framed against the petitioner, to his duties as passing officer. The petitioner being the joint custodian of the entire cash in the branch had failed to balances, neglected In endorsing his signatures scroll registered, authorised verify cash passing officer manipulated transactions blindly in CBS (Core banking solutions). It is stated that the petitioner as 's negligence led to finfi^noical li^oo 4.1— r-i _ • , to a tu.ne of Rs.73,67,767/-. 14. Taking note of the the Deputy General Manager complaint and the magnitude of the misappropriation, given a police same Was registered as FIR No.220 of 2024 for > 316(5), 336(3). 338, 344 R/w Admittedly, no charge sheet is filed is unknown. of the Bank had oi offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4) 3(5) BNS, 66-D ITA-2000-2008. till date and the stage of investigation i 15. Firstly, there is no legal bar for simultaneous holding of criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings. However, neither there Is an absolute bar nor stay can be granted as a matter of course. The 7 ‘advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety' has to be determined in each case in the given facts. Secondly, One of the grounds for stay of disciplinary proceedings vis-a-vis criminal cases emanated on the ground of similarity of charges in . both the proceedings. In the most cited judgement in this line of litigation till date, i.e. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,’ the Hon’ble supreme court after referring to the case law till that point of time framed principles for stay of disciplinary proceedings as a guidance for exercise of discretion of advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety' . The paragraph 22 is extracted below; 16. 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. '(1999)3 see 679 8 ( ) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law involved in that case, will depend upon the nature 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. are of (iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and (Hi) 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 . does not proceed or its disposal Is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings If they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with conclude them at an earlv date even so as to sn lhaf if Ihp, 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. 17. The point Nos.(ii) and (iii) would make it apparent that the stay of disciplinary enquiry can be granted pnly when the departmental proceedings and the criminal set of facts on the basis of the material or charge sheet. In the present case are based on identical and similar collected in the investigation case, the criminal case is still at F.I.R stage and at this stage, there is no comparable yardstick to come to a conclusion that the criminal an^ charges as in the departmental case is based on the same evidence enquiry. It is to be noted that the 9 incident leading to both the proceedings cannot be the criteria to determine similarity as the same incident may have different charges . and evidence to support those charges. Ideally, the charge sheet in the criminal case would give a measure of similarity and identicalness in both the proceedings and only then the court can compare the respective charge sheets and consider staying of the departmental enquiry. 18. Thirdly, even if the departmental enquiry and criminal case are based on identical charges;, and evidence, still there is no bar to proceed with departmental enquiry. The stay of disciplinary enquiry can be considered only when the criminal case involves complicated questions of fact and going back to the second point, this determination whether the criminal case involves complicated facts can be examined only after a charge sheet is filed. Fourthly, the reliance Clause 10.2.2 of the Staff Service 19. Regulations for District Co-operative Central Bank in the State of Andhra Pradesh is misplaced. The said clause cannot be envisaged as a complete standstill of departmental proceedings as a result of the pendency of criminal proceedings and the clause has to be '^understood to mean that stay of the criminal proceedings is desirable, but not in all types of situations. In disciplinary cases 10 initiated on account of criminal case filed by a third party i.e either Section 498A IPC case, Cheque Dishonour case etc., the stay of departmental enquiry is desirable under the said clause, but the said clause cannot be seen as a hindrance to the cases of the present nature, where the criminal case as well as departmental enquiry were initiated by the bank. 20. Fifthly, the stay of departmental proceedings are granted as the delinquent would have reveal his defence in the enquiry and that would cause prejudice in the criminal gase, provided the facts complicated as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs B.K. Meena^. However, in this case, the petitioner at paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit had pleaded that he had submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memorandum and thereafter, the Respondent No.4 was appointed as enquiry officer. Once, the statement of defence is filed by the delinquent, the plea of prejudice on account of revealing the defence in the criminal case would no longer be available and the departmental enquiry can be proceeded with. are (1996) 6 see 417 11 Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 22. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 24. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To 1. One CC to Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Koteswara Rao Mummaneni, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Services- II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. 9 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 6. The Secretary, A.P. Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 7. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:04/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 15380 OF 2025 ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS