APHC010408262023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 21007/2023 Between: Dugge Venkata Ramana Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…. to issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the 2nd respondent in proceeding with parallel departmental proceedings pursuant to the Articles of Charges issued vide Memorandum of Charge C.No.C2/OEPR-75/2023, dated 13.06.2023, though pending criminal case against the petitioner vide FIR No.138/2023, dated 30.03.2023, registered under Sections 399, 380 r/w.34 IPC of Kurnool PS on the identical allegations, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules and contrary to the orders passed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.19349/2023, dated 03.08.2023 and W.P.No.3636/2021, dated 01.04.2021, and set aside the same and consequently, direct the Respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry issued vide 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.21007 of 2023 in Memorandum of Charge in C.No.C2/OEPR-75/2023, dated13.06.2023 and to pass….” 2. Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 10.02.2003. Based on complaint lodged on 30.03.2023, Crime No.138 of 2023 of Kurnool Taluq Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 380 r/w.34 of IPC, was registered against the petitioner, arrayed him as 2nd accused, along with others and the said crime is under investigation. That being so, petitioner was placed under suspension on 02.04.2023 in view of involvement of aforesaid crime. The petitioner was issued charge memo, dated 13.06.2023, proposing to hold departmental enquiry in respect of articles of charge stated therein for imposing penalty under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (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, now the 2nd respondent is proceeding with enquiry. As pending trial of criminal proceedings, the present charge on the same set of allegations is 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. 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.21007 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations for initiating both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings being one and the same and the criminal proceedings are going on, simultaneously proceeding with departmental proceedings would prejudice petitioner, as he will have to disclose the defence even before the criminal trial commences. 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 same. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ponamala Krishna Teja v. The Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.1, 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 Limited2 held that both the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded simultaneously. 5. Even this Court after considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court took similar view in Manupudi Srinivas v. State of A.P3, and para Nos.4 & 5 therein read as follows: “4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.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. 1 2023 SCC OnLine A.P. 189 (Order, dt.10.02.2023, in W.P.No.27373 of 2021) 2 (1999) 3 SCC 679 3 2025 SCC OnLine AP 1104 (Order, dated 26.03.2025, in W.P.No.6979 of 2025) 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.21007 of 2023 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 : ((1999) 3 SCC 679) and G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and others : ((2006) 5 SCC 446) 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 : ((2019) 7 SCC 979) 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 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. (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. (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. 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.21007 of 2023 (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.” 11) 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: “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 was arrested but later released on bail. 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 was 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 was: 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 : ((2023) 10 SCC 675) 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 6 CGR, J. W.P.No.21007 of 2023 been pleased to hold in paras 31 to 35 as recorded in paragraph 6 hereinabove. 12) This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.Zadenga’s case (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.” 6. Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of by staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, in pursuance to the charge memo in C.No.C2/OEPR-75/2023, dated 13.06.2023, till filing of charge sheet by Kurnool Taluq Police in FIR No.138 of 2023, before the concerned jurisdictional Court and examination and cross-examination of all the witnesses during the trial. In the event, charges and witnesses are different as noted by the larger bench in Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force4, it shall be open for the respondent – employer to proceed with the enquiry strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:04.04.2025. cs 4 (2019) 7 SCC 979)