APHC0H)3265O2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE N?-' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16562 OF 2025 Between: K. Sai Nath Kumar Reddy. S/o. K. Venkata Reedy, Aged About 34 Years, Occ: PC 272 14^'^ Battalion, APSP Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalion, Mangalagiri, Amaravathi. 3. The Director General of Police-ll, APSP Battalion Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Commandant, 14*^ Battalion APSP Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District. 5. The DSP/ Assistant Commandant, 14*^ Battalion APSP Janthaluru, Ananthapuram. ...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 order, or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring impugned departmental proceedings vide charge memo in C.No.04//A6/PR/2025 dated 10/04/2025 of the 4*'' respondent and consequential proceedings dated 11-6-2025 of the 5 respondent to conduct oral enquiry against the petitioner even though th pendency of the criminal case 12/01/2024 of the Kothacheruvu Urban Police on the same charge in FIR No. 149/2025 dated station (charge sheet yet to be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Puttaparthi) as contrary to the judgment of the Apex court as illegal arbitrary and violation of article 14,16,21 of Constitution of India and set a side the same and consequentially proceedings vide charge to stay of all further departmental C.NO.04//A6/PR/2025 dated memo in 10/04/2025 of the 4*^ respondent including respondent against the consequential proceedings dated 11-6-2025 of the 5*^ petitioner in view of the Apex court judgment. lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further departmental proceedings vide charge memo in of the C.NO.04//A6/PR/2025 dated 10/04/2025 4*^ respondent including respondent against the court pending disposal of the consequential proceedings dated 11-6-2025 of the 5*'' petitioner in view of the judgment of the Apex above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BOKKA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following order: I ■ APHC010326502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) -0 [3506] •y I.-XH FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16562/2025 Between: 1.K SAI NATH KUMAR REDDY, S/0 K. VENKATA REEDY ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. PC 272 14TH BATTALION, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. AGED APSP ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, APSP BATTALION, MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATHI. 3.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICEII, APSP BATTALION KARNOOL, KARNOOL DISTRICT. 4.THE COMMANDANT. 14TH BATTALION APSP ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5.THE DSP/ ASSISTASNT COMMANDANT. 14TH BATTALION APSP JANTHALURU, ANANTHAPURAM. ...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 issue an order, or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring impugned departmental proceedings vide charge memo in C.No.04//A6/PR/2025 dated 10/04/2025 of the 4th respondent and consequential proceedings dated 11-6-2025 of the 2 CGR.J WP.No.16562/2025 5th respondent to conduct oral enquiry against the petitioner even though pendency of the criminal case on the same charge in FIR No.149/2025 dated 12/01/2024 of the Kothacheruvu Urban Police station (charge sheet yet to be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Puttaparthi) as contrary to the judgment of the Apex court as illegal arbitrary and violation of article 14,16,21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequentially memo in to stay of all further departmental proceedings vide charge 10/04/2025 of the 4th respondent including consequential proceedings dated 11-6-2025 of the 5th respondent against the petitioner in view of the Apex court judgment and to pass C.NO.04//A6/PR/2025 dated 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 pleased to stay of all further departmental proceedings vide charge C.NO.04//A6/PR/2025 dated 10/04/2025 of the 4th respondent including consequential proceedings dated 11-6- 2025 of the 5th respondent against the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Apex court pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I memo in 3 . CGR.J W P No,16562/2025 The Court made the following ORDER: th Petitioner is working as Police Constable at 14 battalion. He was implicated in crime No. 149 of 2025 for the offences under Section 103 (1), 87, 60 read with 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS) which is stated to be pending investigation. Petitioner was arrested in relation to the said case therefore, he has been placed under suspension on 16.12.2024 and later came to be reinstated on 21.05.2025. Petitioner now has been issued charge memo dated 10.04.2025 on account of his involvement in aforesaid criminal case. Petitioner also submitted statement of defence refuting the allegation. As the respondents are now proceedings with the departmental inquiry. pending investigation of crime and criminal case, which relates to same set of allegations, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Bokka Satyanarayana K, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 3. 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 defence 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 placed reliance on the judgment rendered by 4 CGR,4 W P.No 16562/2025 Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27373 of 2021 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 judgment of Apex court took similar view in W.P.No.6979 of 2025, the para Nos 4 & 5 are extracted thereunder: '4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in l/l/.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 another^ and G.M.Tankv. State of Gujarat and others^ 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 Another‘s, 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 ^ 2023 2 ALT 459 (.1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679 (2006)’5 Supreme Court Cases 446 '’(2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 979 5 CGR.J WP.No 16562/2025 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 there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately, (il) 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 delinguent 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. (Hi) 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 (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 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.” 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: 11) 6 CGR.J W.P.No.16562/2025 V*, "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 M/as arrested but later released on ball. 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 M/as 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. 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 M/as; 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.Zadenga^ 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. ^ (2023) 10 jupreme Court Cases 675 CGR.J WP.No.16562/2025 This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’scase (4 supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the 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. ” 12) r Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment, this Writ Petition is disposed of by staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Commandant, 14'^ Bn. APSP, Ananthapuramu, in pursuance to the charge vide NO.04/A6/PR/2025, dated 10.04.2025, till filing of charge sheet by jurisdictional police in FIR No. 149 of 2024 on the file of Kothacheruvu Urban Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District 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. There shall be Pd order as to costs. 4. memo As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Principle Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi 2. The Inspector^General of Police, APSP Battalion, Mangalagiri, Amaravathi. 3. The Director General of Police-ll, APSP Battalion Kurnool, Kurnool District 4. The Commandant, 14*^ Battalion APSP District. 5. The DSP/ Assistant Commandant, 14' Ananthapuram. 6. One CC to Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUTl 8. Two CD Copies Cnr Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram Battalion APSP Janthaluru, ' \ HIGH COURT DATED:04/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16562 OF 2025 *r 1 9 JUL 2025 J rrentSectiopxV «3\ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS