APHC010312682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 15878 OF 2025 Between: K. Ranjith kumar, S/o K. Prabhakar, age 39 years, R/o. D.No.28-6-545, near sri baktha Anjaneya swamy temple. Housing Board, Ananathapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings District. 2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh Police Headquarters Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuramu District. 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ananthapuramu Ananthapuramu and Inquiry Officer, Ananthapuramu District. Urban 5. The Inspector of Police/Circle Inspector, Itikalapalli and Presenting Officer. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the ^ part of Respondent Nos.3 in initiation of Departmental Enquiry for the same set of facts/ allegationsA/Vitnesses on which a criminal case vide FIR.No.292 of 2019 of Dharmavaram Urban Police Station pending adjudication before the Court below pending adjudication instead of waiting for the decision of criminal court as arbitrary, illegal and quite contrary to well established legal principles in the case of CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY Versus. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHERAND ANOTHER reported in (1999) 3 SCO 679 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to under the Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Memorandum of Charges in proceedings C.No.8088/A6/PR/2019, Dt.25.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 . 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 grant stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the Memorandum of Charges in proceedings C.No.8088/A6/PR/2019, Dt.25.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 pending final disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAVIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: me APHC010312682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] ri-’ -Ti' *• WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 15878/2025 Between: 1.K. RANJITH KUMAR, S/0 K. PRABHAKAR, AGE 39 YEARS, NEAR SRI BAKTHA ANJANEYA HOUSING BOARD, ANANATHAPUR R/0. D.NO.28-6-545, SWAMY TEMPLE. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS HOME DEPARTMENT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA MANGALAGIRI, 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE PRADESH POLICE HEADQUARTERS, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. OFFICER, POLICE SUBDIVISIONAL 4.THE ANANTHAPURAMU URBAN, ANANTHAPURAMU AND INQUIRY OFFICER, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE/CIRCLE INSPECTOR ITIKALAPALLI AND PRESENTING OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.l5878of2025 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 may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of Respondent Nos.3 in initiation of Departmental Enquiry for the same set of facts/ allegationsA/Vitnesses on which a criminal case vide FIR.No.292 of 2019 of Dharmavaram Urban Police Station pending adjudication before the Court below pending adjudication instead of waiting for the decision of criminal court as arbitrary, illegal and quite contrary to well established legal principles in the case of CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY Versus. BHARAT an GOLD MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHERAND ANOTHER reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under the Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently set and aside the Memorandum of Charges in proceedings C.N0.8O88/A6/PR/2 019, Dt.25.06.2022 issued by the respondent No.3 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 202fi 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 all further proceedings in pursuance of the Memorandum of Charges in proceedings C.No.8088/A6/PR/2019, Dt.25.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 pending final disposal of the above Writ and pass Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P RAVIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 3 ms HCGR, J W.P.No.l5878of2025 The Court made the following Order: Petitioner is working as Police Constable, he has been arrayed as accused in two crimes i.e., Crime Nos.291 and 292 of 2019. Crime No.291 of 2019, after due investigation and after filing of charge sheet, culminated into S.C.No.215 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for short ‘I.P.C.’), which by judgment dated 02.01.2025 ended in acquittal. Crime No.292 of 2019, which instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 354D of I.P.C., upon investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same is taken cognizance and pending as C.C.No.163 of 2024 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmavaram. Simultaneously, petitioner has been issued charge memo dated 25.06.2022, with reference to his involvement in Crime No.291 of 2019, later even Crime No.292 of 2019 has also been included. Petitioner stated to have submitted statement of defence refuting allegations made therein and the inquiry is stated to be pending. was 2. Heard Sri P.Ravikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing behalf of respondents. on 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as. Crime No.291 of 2019, which later got numbered as S.C.No.215 of 4 HCGR, J W.P.No.l5878of2025 2022, petitioner has been acquitted and insofar as, second crime i.e., Crime No.292 of 2019 the same is pending as C.C.No.163 of 2024 on the file of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmavaram. As C.C.No.163 of 2024 is pending for trial, in case petitioner is proceeded with departmental inquiry, he has to disclose all his defence, as the witness who would be examined in the course of inquiry in both disciplinary proceedings being one and the same the same would prejudice his case before the trial Court. He placed reliance upon the judgment of M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited^, wherein at para No.22, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “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. 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. 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. (i) (ii) (iii) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental (iv) (1999) 3 see 679 5 HCGR, J W.P.No.l5878of2025 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 \A/ere 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.” Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, on the (V) 4. 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 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 nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable.” However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings 5. have been initiated against the petitioner based on account of his ^(2019) 6 see 155 6 HCGR, J W.P.No.l5878of2025 one has already ended in acquittal and the second is at the stage of trial. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-lll and the list of involvement in Crime Nos.291 and 292 of 2019 witnesses in the charge sheet are more or less similar. In these circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence and it will cause prejudice to him. 6. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order. Court to 7. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of this Court deems it departmental proceedings, for one year. India’s case appropriate to stay the 8. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmavaram, shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.163 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. needless to mention here that the petitioner shall ^(2016) 9 see 491 7 HCGR, J W.P.No.l5878of2025 of this order before the The petitioner shall file a copy 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’scase. 9. With the above observations, 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. 10. sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall As a stand closed. Sd/-J.SAROJA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// tON OFFICER SE To Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh Police Headquarters, 1. The Secretariat Buildings, 2. The Director General of Police Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu Ananthapuramu District. Urban, Ananthapuramu Officer, Police Sub-Divisional 4. The Ananthapuramu and Inquiry Officer Inspector of Police/Circle Inspector Ananthapuramu District. Itikalapalli and Presenting 5. The Officer. 6. One 7. Two CCs to GP for Services-1 8. Two CD Copies CC to Sri P. Ravikanth, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED;02/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 15878 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS