% ^PHC010320322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 03^ THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No: 16309 OF 2025 Between: B. Jagannadham, S/o.Late Linganna, Aged about 55 years, Working as Head Constable G. No. 1492, Native of Chinnatekur Village, Kurnool Mandal, Now resident of Plot No. 505, Sai Dwaraka Enclaves Balaji Nagar, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police & Disciplinary Authority, Nandyal, Nandyal District. 4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nandyal District. ...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 continuation of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 3rd and 4th Respondents based on charge memo including consequential vide C.NO.A6/07-OEPR/2022 dated 11.10.2023 % proceedings dated 05-11-2023, Radio messages 31-05-2025, 04-06-2025 Memo dated 10-06-2025 and Memorandum dated 17-06-2025 respectively illegal improper unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law and also contrary to PO 150 of APPM and further direct the not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo in C.No. A6/07- OEPR/2022 dated 11.10.2023 till the judgment is pronounced in S.C. S.P.L. No. 188 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge for SC and STs (POA) Act -Cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool as per PO 150 of APPM. 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 direct the Respondents No. 3 and 4 not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo in C.No. A6/07- OEPR/2022 dated 11.10.2023 till the judgment is pronounced in S.C. S.P.L. No. 188 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge for SC and STs (POA) Act - Cum - VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool as per PO 150 of APPM pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA SUNEEL REDDY, REPRESENTING M/s. Y. RATNA PRABHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following order: as APHC010320322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0;^;0 [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16309/2025 Between: 1.B JAGANNADHAM, S/0 LATE LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE G. NO. 1492, NATIVE OF CHINNATEKUR VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL, NOW RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 505, SAI DWARAKA ENCLAVES BALAJI NAGAR, KURNOOL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4.THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF ■ 2 HCGR,J W.P.No.l6309of2025 MANDAMUS declaring the continuation of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 3rd and 4th Respondents based on charge memo vide C.No. A6/07-OEPR/2022 dated 11.10.2023 including consequential proceedings dated 05-11-2023, Radio messages 31- 05-2025, 04-06-2025, Memo dated 10-06-2025 and Memorandum dated 17-06-2025 respectively as illegal improper unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law and also contrary to PO 150 of APPM and further direct the not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo in C.No. A6/07- OEPR/2022 dated 11.10.2023 till the judgment is pronounced in S.C. S.P.L. No. 188 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge for SC and STs (POA) Act -Cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool as per PO 150 of APPM and pass and to pass 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 direct the Respondents No. 3 and 4 not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo in C.No. A6/07-OEPR/2022 dated 11.10.2023 till the judgment is pronounced in S.C. S.P.L. No. 188 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge for SC and STs (POA) Act - Cum - VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool as per PO 150 of APPM pending disposal of main writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.Y RATNAPRABHA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 3 HCGR,J W.P.No.l6309of2025 The Court made the following Order: Petitioner, Head Constable, has been implicated in Crime No. 153 of 2022, of Ulindakonda Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The said case, later upon investigation has culminated into S.C.Spl.No.188 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Judge for SC and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge Kurnool. Based on the same, petitioner has been issued charge memo dated 11.10.2023. The list of documents and witnesses annexed to charge memo and witnesses referred to above offences are more or less similar. Petitioner submitted statement of defence to the charge memo refuting the allegations. The respondents are now proceeding with inquiry and calling upon the witnesses for examination. As pending trial of criminal proceedings, the departmental proceedings are being conducted on same set of facts and evidence. Petitioner preferred present writ petition seeking stay of departmental proceedings. Heard Sri Venkata Suneel Reddy, learned counsel 2. representing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. HCGR,J W.P.No.16309 of 2025^ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities 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. Bharat Gold Mines Limitecf, 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 (ii) case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law IS 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 proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. 1999 (3) see 679 5 HCGRJ W^P.No.l6309of2025 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) 4. 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 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 HC6R,J W.P.No.l6309of2025 nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable.” 5. However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.153 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 109 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1 )(r), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act. 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 allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. are 6. In Stste Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Ani^, 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. 7. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. India’s case 8. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Special Judge for SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions (2016) 9 see 491 7 HCGRJ W.P.No.16309 of 2025 Judge, Kurnool, shall complete the criminal trial in the above S.C. 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 the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. I 9. 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. 10. 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ! //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police and Disciplinary Authority, Nandyal Nandyal District. 4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nandyal District. 5. One CC to M/s. Y.Ratna Prabha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. gi ■ HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 16309 OF 2025 g UJU1;2J25 I ^ . Current Section . DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS