APHC010329572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) (i°ii O d '2^ i!m o THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16427 OF 2025 Between: Koyyana Satyanarayana, S/o Sivanarayana, Aged 33 years, Occ- UHF, Trunk Repeater, Communication Head Constable-1735, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND t. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Communication Organization, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ^5. The AddI Director Police Communications, AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Communication, Visakhapatnam Zone, Visakhapatnam 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 action of the Respondents in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by issuing Memorandum of Charge vide C.No.1005/A3/APPCO/2024-2025 No.59/PR/2025 dt.06.05.2025 of the 3rd respondent, in spite of pendency of the S.C.No. 111/2023 on the file of the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act-Cases, Visakhapatnam allegations/charges as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance until conclusion of criminal trial in S.C.No.111/2023 on the file of the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act-Cases, Visakhapatnam. on the same set of 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 stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuant to the Memorandum of Charge vide C. No. 1005/A3/APPCO/2024-2025 N0.59/PR/2025 dt.06.05.2025 issued by 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: APHC010329S72025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16427/2025 Between: 1.KOYYANA SATYANARAYANA, S/0. SIVANARAYANA, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC-COMMUNICATION HEAD CONSTABLE-1735, UHF, TRUNK REPEATER, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR GNERAL OF POLICE, TECHNICAL SERVICES, A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE COMMUNICATION ORGANIZATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5.THE ADDL DIRECTOR POLICE COMMUNICATIONS, AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE COMMUNICATION VISAKHAPATNAM ZONE, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by issuing Memorandum of Charge vide C.No.1005/A3/APPCO/2024-2025 N0.59/PR/2025 dt.06.05.2025 of the 3rd respondent, in spite of pendency of the S.C.No.111/2023 on the file of the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act-Cases, Visakhapatnam, on the same set of allegations/charges as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, qigainst the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance until conclusion of criminal trial in S.C.No. 111/2023 on the file of the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act-Cases, Visakhapatnam and 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 may be pleased to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuant to the Memorandum of Charge vide C. No. 1005/A3/APPCO/2024-2025 N0.59/PR/2025 dt.06.05.2025 issued by 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass 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.16427 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Services-I appearing for respondents. counsel for for 2. (a) Petitioner, head constable, has been implicated accused in Cr. No.303/2023 for offences under Sections 417, 323 IPC & Section 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST POA Act, after investigation, police have filed charge sheet and the now been taken cognizance in S.C. No.111/2023 on the file of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Visakhapatnam. as same is (b) Simultaneously, petitioner now has been issued charge memo dated 06.05.2025, setting out imputation of charge based on his involvement in aforesaid crime. The list of witnesses is annexed to the said articles of charge. Petitioner has submitted statement of defense on 26.05.2025 refuting aforesaid charge, and the proceedings are issued now. Later, respondents have x appointed Enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 12.06.2025 and also appointed Presenting Officer by even proceedings dated 2 CGR, J W.P. No.16427of2025 12.06.2025, who are presently pursuing the proceedings. Earlier too petitioner was placed under suspension, and later, he came to be reinstated into service, and the criminal trial is pending before competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulged defense, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and 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. (i) 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. (ii) 1 (1999) 3 see 679 CGR, J W.P. No.16427of2025 (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. 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 4 CGR, J W.R No. 16427 of 2025 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.” 5. However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.303 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 323 IPC & Section 3{1)(r), 3(1 )(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST POAAct. The list of witnesses mentioned in the 2 (2019) 6 see 155 5 CGR, J W.P. No.16427of2025 charge sheet and witnesses in departmental proceedings are more or less the same. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defense and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 6. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^, 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. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. 7. 1 Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Visakhapatnam, shall complete the criminal trial in the above Sessions Case 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 that the petitioner shall 8. 3 (2016) 9 see 491 6 CGR, J W.R No. 16427 of 2025 cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. 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. 09. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Communication Organization, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 5. The AddI Director Police Communications, AP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Communication, Visakhapatnam Zone, Visakhapatnam District. 8. One CC to Sri. N Aswartha Narayana Advocate [OPUC] ^ 9. Two CCs to GP for Services I High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Three CD Copies 10. gsc HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16427 OF 2025 I 2 8JUL 2025 | DISPOSING THEWP WITHOUT COSTS