APHC010446002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 23205 OF 2025 Between: N. Jayakumar, S/o. N.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 52 Years constable (Civil), Presently working at VR Annamayya District, Kadapa District. Occ: Police Formally ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of police, Chittoor 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^ Respondent in initiating and proceeding with parallel departmental enquiry against the petitioner based the Article of charges issued in C.N0.A6/OPER/17/2023 Dated. 20.12.2023 even though criminal case is pending vide FIR.No. 185/2022 Datedi6.07.2022 of Chittoor-I Town UPS U/s 420, 419, 409, 468, 471 R/w 120 still under FIR Stage) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by Hon’ble High court in WP.23315/2020 dated, consequently direct the Respondents not to proceed with the departmental on (b) IPC (crime the 01.04.2021 and in C.NO.A6/0PER/17/2023 Dated. 20.12.2023 till enquiry issued vide finalization of criminal case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to proceed with the enquiry initiated vide C.NO.A6/OPER/17/2023 Dated:20.12.2023 on the file of the 2"^^ respondent until finalization of criminal case pending against the petitioner vide FIR.No. 185/2022 Dated; 16.07.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the followingorder: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 23205/2025 APHC010446002025 [3460] Between; AGED . ] JAYAKUMAR, S/0 N.KRISHNA MURTHY, ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. POLICE CONSTABLE (CIVIL), PRESENTLY WORKING AT VR ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, FORMALLY KADAPA DISTRICT. 1.N ...PETITIONER AND PRINCIPAL OF AP, REP.BY ITS HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT 1.THE STATE SECRETARY VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. POLICE, CHITTOOR 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DISTRICT. ...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: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.23205 of 2025 ORDER: In the present Writ Petition the Petitioner is questioning initiation of preliminary departmental enquiry against him vide dated 20.12.2023 proceedings in C.N0.A6/OEPR/17/2023 though a criminal case vide F.I.R.No.185 of 2022 dated 16.07.2022 before Chittoor I Town Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 409, 468 and 471 read with 120B I.P.C. is pending. The Petitioner is working as Police Constable and a charge 2. memorandum was issued wherein two articles of charges were framed. They read as under; ‘Article -I "Exhibited gross misconduct by involving in a criminal case in Cr. No. 185/2022 U/s 420,419,409,468,471 r/w 120(b) IPC of Chittoor I town PS as accused (A4) and got arrested on 11.12.2022. Thus, he violated the provisions of Rule 3 of ARCS (conduct) Rules 1964." 3 Article-ll "Exhibited reprehensible misconduct and indulged in malpractice. Being a member in a disciplined force while working as Treasury orderly by conspiring with Home Guards who are worked in Home Guard Unit, Rl Office, Chittoor collected huge amounts from several employees, created fake documents, D.Os for his illegal gain and cheated the department and damage the image of Police Department in public. Thus he violated the provision of Rule 3 of ARCS (conduct) Rules 1964. un- 3. Consequent thereto, an enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted. The Home Guards whose services were terminated on the ground that they were appointed on the fake documents said to have been issued by the Petitioner had challenged the orders of termination in W.P.No.41778 of 2022 and W.P.No.42503 of 2022 before this Court. This Court vide a common order dated 04.08.2025 set aside the orders of termination leaving it open to the Respondents to conduct enquiry afresh after giving opportunity to the Petitioners therein. Paragraph No. 10 of the said order is extracted below: Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is rem,ended to the appointing authority the 4*^ respondent, for conducting enquiry afresh by providing 10. opportunity to the petitioners. If the authority comes to a finding that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of a documents, appropriate orders shall be fake and forged passed by the appointing authority after issuing notice to the petitioners. If the appointing authority finds it, otherwise, i.e.. arrives at finding that the orders of appointment are genuine and are not forged, as alleged, the petitioners shall be taken with all consequential benefits including back into service however the said back wages shall be computed @ wages 50% of the wages. Learned counsel for the Petitioner now submits that in the 4. light of the common order passed by this Court until the enquiry against the Home Guards who were allegedly appointed on fake orders said to have been issued by the Petitioner is established, it would be unfair to foreclose the enquiry against the Petitioner. It would be is further contended that foreclosure of enquiry the Home Guards and unless the charges against established, the enquiry against the prejudicial to the Home Guards are should not be further proceeded as it would lead to Petitioner miscarriage of justice. Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Petitioner had participated in the enquiry and after the enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges against 5. the Petitioner were established the present writ petition is filed. He would further submit that the enquiry that has been initiated has to proceed to the logical end and interference at this not warranted. stage is 6. Having heard the respective counsel, the contention of the Petitioner that the charges against the Petitioner cannot be examined in isolation and the same should be considered only after the charges against the Home Guards are also proved cannot be said to be without merit. The article of charge No.2 framed against the Petitioner is interdependent on the enquiry that is likely to be conducted against the dismissed Home Guards. In the opinion of this Court the disciplinary authority should consider these aspects before proceeding further in the case. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it to the disciplinary authority to examine the objections of the Petitioner before proceeding further in conclusion of the enquiry against the Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. open 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SDI- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// // ^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of police, Chittoor District. 3. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:09/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 23205 OF 2025 rrentSectio <2 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS