APHC010328192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17176 OF 2025 / Between: G MURALIDHAR, S/o.G.Babu (Late), Aged about 38 years. Police Constable No.2459, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Presently working at IV-Town Police Station j ...Petitioner AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnnol District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus wherein by setting aside the Charge Memo issued by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in C.N0.A6/PR-12/2024 dt.20 01.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. / 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 ft suspend the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent in vide proceedings C.N0.A6/PR- 12/2024 dt.20.01.2025 till the conclusion of the criminal ca^e Counsel for the Petitioner: C SRINIVASA BABA ». Counsel forlhe Respondents Nos,1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: '• ■■.'V: . d' ■ u >, APHC010328192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.17176 of 2025 Between: 1.G MURALIDHAR, S/O.G.BABU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. POLICE CONSTABLE No.2459. WORKING AT IV-TOWN POLICE STATION KURNOOL DISTRICT. PRESENTLY KURNOOL, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL, KURNNOL DISTRICT. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR 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 issue a writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus wherein by setting aside the Charge Memo issued by the 1 proceedings in C.N0.A6/PR-12/2024 dt.20.01.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. St respondent vide I 2 CGR,J W.P.No.l7176of2025 Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.C. SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1- GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 4 CGR,J W.P.No.l7176of2025 petitioner divulged defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and placed reliance upon the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited^ Apex Court observed as follows: wherein at para No.22, the Hon’ble “22. The conclusions which decisions of this Court referred to above are deducibie from various are; (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. in a criminal (ii) if the departmental proceedings and the based on identical and similar set of facts the criminal case against the delinquent emplovee is of a criminal case are and the charge in 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 grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law case 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 (Hi) above 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, if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if cannot be (V) (1999) 3 see 679 / 3 CGR,J W.P.No.17176 of 2025 ORDER; Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. Petitioner is working as Police Constable. He was implicated in Crime No.99 of 2024 registered on the file of Kodair Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, for offences punishable under Sections 85, 118(1) & 352 of BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After conducting investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and the matter is now stated to be pending for trial in C.C.No.360 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollapur. Based on the same set of allegations and his involvement in criminal case, petitioner has been issued charge memo vide C.N0.A6/PR-12/2024 dated 20.01.2025, setting out three Articles of Charges. Having received the said charge petitioner submitted representation dated 04.05.2025 to respondent N0.I, requesting to furnish certain documents in order to facilitate him to submit explanation to the charge memo. While furnishing the documents sought by petitioner, inquiry officer was simultaneously appointed, vide proceedings dated 16.06.2025, to inquire into the charges levelled against petitioner. 2. memo Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry and the 3. 5 CGR,J W.P.No.17176 of 2025 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.’’ 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 in 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: 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 17. ^(2019) 6 see 155 i 6 CGRJ W.P.No.l7176of2025 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.99 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 118(1) & 352 of BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition 1961, before Kodair Police Station, Nagarkurnool District, witnesses mentioned 85, Act, The list of in the charge sheet and witnesses in departmental proceedings are more or less the same. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings continue, the petiti cause prejudice to the petitioner. are allowed to ner is required to divulge his defence and it will KJ 6. In State Bank of India and Others V. Neelam Nag and Another^ the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the criminal trial later than one year from the date of the order. as expeditiously as possible, not 7. Given directions of the Hon'bie Apex Court in Neelam Nag's case, this Court deems it proceedings for one year. appropriate to stay the departmental 8. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned I ) 4 ^(2016) 9 see 491 i 1 CGR,J W.P.No.l7176of2025 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kollapur, shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.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, 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 Capt. M. Paul Anthony’s The case. 9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to bosts. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- KJ. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. C SRINIVASA BABA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I High Court of Andhra Pradesh-^ [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies. AL ’9 HIGH COURT ,\ DATED: 10/07/2025 \\ \ ORDER WPNO. 17176 OF 2025 *{ 1 1 SEP 2025 IS /o> rrentSecti A- DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS