APHC010444542021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No: 26910 OF 2021 Between: Pagadala Madhava Rao, S/o. Ctiennaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ; Police Constable, R/o. Battalion, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Commandant, 6th Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, WPC, CID, Headquarters, Mangalagiri. The Assistant Commandant, 6^^ Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. E 0 and Additional Commandant 6*^ Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. Presenting Officer, 6*'' Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. P.Sri Devi, D/o. P. ChinnaRao, R/o. Flat. No.502, Croon Residency, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ...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 appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in issuing Memorandum of Charge dated 08.09.2021 to the petitioner and further appointing the 6 and 7 respondents as Enquiry and Presenting Officers vide proceedings C.No.14/Major PR/2021 05.11.2021 to complete the Oral Enquiry within one month against the petitioner on the same allegations made in Cr.No.84/2018 Saifabad P.S., Hyderabad and FIR 1868/2018 on the file of Rajendranagar P.S., Cyberabad and were stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in CrI.P. No.981/2021 and CrI.P No.7170/2021 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2, 6 and 7 not to proceed further in pursuance of Memorandum of Charge dt.08.09.2021on consequential proceedings of the 2"^^ respondent dt.05 11 2021, in the interest of justice. lA No: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the respondents 6 and 7 not to proceed with the enquiry basing on the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Memorandum of Charge dated 08.09.2021 and C.No.14/Major PR/2021, dt.05 .11.2021 against the petitioner, and suspend same in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.8; The Court made the following order: nd dated APHC010444542021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 26910/2021 Between; 1.PAGADALA MADHAVA RAO. S/0. CHENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. POLICE CONSTABLE, R/0. 6TH BATTALION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE SLATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMANDANT, 6TH BATTALION, APSF', MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.I.D., A.P, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, WPC, CID, HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, 6TH BATTALION, APSP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6.E 0 AND ADDITIONAL COMMANDANT 6TH BATTALION, APSP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRiCT. /.PRESENTING OFFICER, 6TH BATTALION, APSP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 8.P SRI DEVI, D/O. P. CHINNARAO, R/O. FLAT. NO.502, CROON RESIDENCY. SRI RAM NAGAR COLONY, PUPPALAGUDA, HYDERABAD f 2 ...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 toto issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Memorandum of Charge dated 08.09.2021 to the petitioner and further appointing the 6 and 7 respondents as Enquiry and Presenting Officers vide proceedings C.No.14/Major PR/2021, dated 05.11.2021 to complete the Oral Enquiry within one month against the petitioner on the same allegations made in Cr.No.84/2018 Saifabad P.S., Hyderabad and FIR 1868/2018 on the file of Rajendranagar P.S., Cyberabad and were stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in CrI.P. No.981/2021 and CrI.P No.7170/2021 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2, 6 and 7 not to proceed further in pursuance of Memorandum of Charge dt.08.09.2021on consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt.05 11 2021, in the interest of justice, and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the respondents 6 and 7 not to proceed with the enquiry basing on the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Memorandum of Charge dated 08.09.2021 and C .No.14/Maj or PR/2021, dt. 05 .11.2021 against the petitioner, and suspend same in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: V ORDER: Heard Ms. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home. 2. The petitioner has been working as Police Constable. On account of Police complaint filed for offences punishable under the provisions of 3 Sections 417, 420, 506 IPC, and another complaint for offences punishable under the provisions of Section 354-D of IPC, a Charge Memo dated 08.09.2021 was issued proposing to hold enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1991, framing the following charge: “Article:- “Sri .PMadava Rao, PC-931 of "H” Coy exhibited gross misconduct by cheating, threatened to kill and blackmailed with personal photos of women named by Smt. PSridevi resident of Hyderabad. On coming to know that her husband cheat and left her and the said PMadhavaRao assured to marry her Later he postponed marriage with some lame excuses. As she pressurized him he threatened to kill her. On which a case in Cr. No. 84/2018, u/s 417, 420, 506 IPC of Salfabad Pollice Station, Hyderabad was registered and investigating into. Later also, he blackmailed her with her personal photos. In this regard, as she lodged a complaint at Rajendranagar Police Station, they registered a case in Cr.No.1868/2018 u/s 354-D IPC of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad and seized both their mobiles and sent to FSL for analysis. Thus he violated the Rule 03 of ARCS Conduct (CC&A) Rules-1964”. 3. The gist of the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner was that he had developed an acquaintance with the complainant, who was separated from her husband and had assured her of marriage; however, he never came forward to marry her. When the complainant insisted on marriage, he had blackmailed her and threatened to publish and disseminate her photographs, thus, she approached the Police. On her complaint, a crime in Cr.No.84 of 2018 for offences under Sections 417, 420, 506 IPC was registered and for offence under Sec.354-D IPC, Cr.No.1868 of 2018 was registered. i 4 4. It is contended that seeking quash of the crimes registered against the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Crl.P.No.981 of 2020 & Crl.P.No.7170 of 2020. In both the cases, stay of all further proceedings were granted. 5. To the Charge Memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he was directed to complete the oral enquiry within one month. Challenging the proceedings of the Department, issuing Charge Memo, and appointing the Enquiry Officer, the instant writ petition is filed. 6. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the crimes registered against the petitioner were quashed. The petitioner was found not guilty and was thus acquitted in Cr.No.84 of 2018 vide order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 30.04.2024 and Cr.No. 1868 of 2018 was also closed as lack of evidence on 07.02.2025. It is further stated that the complainant is no more and she died on 13.04.2021. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the charges in the criminal and the departmental proceedings are similar, therefore, the departmental proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further, having regard to the acquittal of the petitioner In criminal cases. Thus, argues that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the submit that both the disciplinary and departmental 8. respondents would proceedings are different; the conclusion of the criminal proceedings will have no bearing on the departmental proceedings, which have been initiated for the alleged misconduct. 9. Having regard to the facts involved in the case, since it is stated that the complainant had died on 13.04.2021, the impugned proceedings cannot be allowed to proceed further, having regard to the fact that the charge framed against the petitioner is misconduct of cheating by promising the deceased to marry and threatening, blackmailing the deceased. The disciplinary proceedings, if to be proceeded further, require an examination and cross-examination of the victim, the deceased, in light of the nature of the Thus, the death of the complainant. allegations made against the petitioner, led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, renders whose complaint the departmental proceedings futile. Therefore, the Impugned proceedings are set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order 10. as to costs. sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand As a dosed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY, REGISTER fe=flCER //TRUE COPY// SECTIO To, Department, state of , Amaravati, Guntur District. to Government, Home 1. The Principal Secretary Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi 2. The Commandant, 6**^ Battalion, APSF, Mangalagih, Guntur District. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, WPC, CID, Headquarters, Mangalagiri. 5. The Assistant Commandant, 6*^ Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. EO and Additional Commandant 6*^' Battalion, APSP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 7. The Presenting Officer, 6 District. 8. P. Sri Devi, D/o. P. ChinnaRao, R/o. Flat. No.502, Croon Residency, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad 9. One CC to Smt. Pulipati Radhika, Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies. th Battalion, APSP Mangalagiri, Guntur ssb HIGH COURT 1 DATED:25/07/2025 S ? ' AUG 7m o ORDER WP NO.26910 OF 2021 o> ^ . Current Section . ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS