APHC010002292024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 498/2024 Between: Kataru Anand ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAVIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…. 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 No.3 in initiation of Departmental Enquiry for the same set of facts/allegations/witnesses on which a criminal case vide Cr. No.76 of 2019 of Kadiri Urban Police Station before the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadari, Anantapuramu District, 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 v. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHERAND ANOTHER reported in 1999 3 SCC 679 apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.498 of 2024 Memorandum of Charges in proceedings C No 8078/A6/PR/2020 Dt 26 10 2021 issued by the respondent No 3 and pass….” 2. Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable vide P.C.No.2964 in Kadiri Town Police Station. Based on complaint lodged on 31.03.2019, Crime No.76 of 2019 of Kadiri Urban Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered against the petitioner and others. After filing of charge sheet, the case is pending. That being so, petitioner was placed under suspension on 01.08.2019 in view of involvement of aforesaid crime and later, he came to be reinstated into service on 12.09.2019. The petitioner was issued proceedings dated 26.10.2021 proposing to hold departmental enquiry in respect of articles of charge stated therein for imposing penalty under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Allegations in the charge memo and statement of witnesses in both proceedings are more or less same. Based on the said articles of charge memo, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as enquiry officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. Now, when the 4th respondent is proceeding with enquiry, the petitioner has sought for time and the matter is pending. As pending trial of criminal proceedings, the present charge on the same set of allegations is 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.498 of 2024 being inquired into, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 4. 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 Limited1, 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 : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) 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. (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 charge- sheet. 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.498 of 2024 (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. (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.” 5. 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 v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel2, 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.” 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.498 of 2024 6. However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.76 of 2019 of Kadiri Urban Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 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 are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 7. In State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag3, 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. 8. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case3, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. 9. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri, shall complete the criminal trial 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 6 CGR, J. W.P.No.498 of 2024 in the C.C. relating to Crime No.76 of 2019 of Kadiri Urban Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioner and others, 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 cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. 10. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. 11. 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 case1. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:26.03.2025. cs