APHC010309222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 15425/2025 Between: Bagepalli Shafiullah Khan ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.15425 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to declare the action of the Respondents in initiating the departmental enquiry and proceeding to conduct enquiry into the departmental proceedings by issuing Charge Memo vide Roc.No.403055(526923)/2022/A3, dated 06.06.2025 in spite of pendency of the criminal case vide F.I.R. No.03/RCT-ATP/2022, dt.22.09.2022 on the file of A.C.B., Ananthapuramu Range Police Station, Ananthapuramu District, on the same set of allegations/charges as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri G.Lakshmi Narayana, learned standing counsel, appearing for 4th respondent. 2 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 3. Petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant at Hindupur Municipality, ACB trap was laid against him and on the allegation that he had accepted bribe from one of the complainants for doing official favour, he was implicated in Crime No.03/RCT- ATP/2022 for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The investigation in aforesaid case is concluded and charge sheet is stated to be filed but has not yet been taken cognizance. For the same set of facts and allegations, petitioner has now been issued charge memo vide Roc.No.403055(526923)/2022/A3, dated 06.06.2025. Petitioner is now called upon to submit his statement of defense in pursuance of aforesaid charge memo. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incidents and allegations for initiating both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings being one and the same. When the criminal proceedings are going on, simultaneous initiation of departmental proceedings would cause prejudice to the petitioner, as he will to disclose the defense before the criminal trial has taken up. The list of witnesses indicated in the charge memo and those would be examined during the course of the criminal trial, are more or less simultaneously same. He 3 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27373 of 20211 , wherein this Court, after considering the various judgments on aforesaid point, in particular, case of Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited held that both the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded simultaneously. Even this Court after considering the various judgments of Apex court took similar view in W.P.No.6979 of 2025, para No.4 is extracted hereunder: “4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.467 of 2024 to contend that as petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on criminal case which was instituted against him, pending investigation and filing charge sheet therein, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with. The Division Bench while dealing with the aforesaid issue has summarized law on this aspect in Paras 10 to 12, which read as under: “10) The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another2 and G.M.Tankv. State of 1 2023 2 ALT 459 2 (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679 4 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 Gujarat and others3 has subsequently been appreciated by a larger bench consisting of three judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Another4, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court after appreciating the factual and legal components of the conundrum has categorically upheld the correctness of law as laid down in M. Paul Anthony case (1 Supra) and the Hon’ble Apex court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad case (3 supra)has been pleased to observe and hold in ‘Para 20’ as under: 20. The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case (supra) on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case where a question arose for consideration as to whether the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be continued simultaneously and this Court answered in para 22 as under: “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 3 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446 4(2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 979 5 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 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 chargesheet. (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 6 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 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.” 11) In the above background, we have appreciated the ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the Respondents. Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are:- 6. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. In his written show cause to this Memorandum, the Delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending him, arising from the same set of transactions. 7. The appellant-bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer who, in his report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The Delinquent Employee, again denying the charges, filed a response to that but was eventually dismissed from the services at the bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28th March 2003. The departmental appeal filed by him, after due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed on 16th August 2004. 7 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal, the delinquent employee filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.12 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court. The question before the said Court was: whether, in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 20023, the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee (respondent) herein ought to have been stayed or not.” The above paras would reveal that facts on hand and the facts involved in the ruling, as recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are at a complete variance. In the instant case, the appellant has approached this Court at the stage of framing of articles of charges. On the contrary, the facts recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India and others v. P.Zadenga5 would reveal that the delinquent employee had participated in the enquiry and thereafter has proceeded to contest the correctness of the enquiry. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paras 31 to 35 as recorded in paragraph 6 hereinabove. 12) This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court inP. Zadenga’scase (4 supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the 5 (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 675 8 CGR, J W.P. No.15425 of 2025 said case. A close perusal of the above ruling does not also disclose any observations which would derogate from law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony’s Case (1 supra) and as upheld by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s case.” 5. Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of by staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent in pursuance to the charge memo vide Roc.No.403055(526923)/2022/A3, dated 06.06.2025, till the charge sheet is taken cognizance by the concerned jurisdictional magistrate and examination and cross-examination of all the witness. In the event, charges and witnesses are different as noted by the larger bench in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s Case, it shall be open for the respondent – employer to proceed with the enquiry strictly in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 25.06.2025 SS