APHC010470172018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22409/2018 Between: Mamidi Rambabu ...PETITIONER AND The Registrar Administration High Court Of Judicature and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G U R C PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner is working as an Examiner, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, was served with article of charge for conduct of a disciplinary enquiry against him. The said article of charge states as follows:- “Article I: “That, as per the report of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, you Sri M. Rambabu, Examiner of Copies, being a public servant, while working in the Court of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bobbili, are involved in a Criminal Case in PRC No.17/2017 on the file of the IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam corresponding to Crime No.106/2017 U/Sec.307 r/w 34 IPC of the III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam as it is 2 borne out from the record that you, being the parent of an infant baby born to your wife, alongwith the Staff of Krishna Hospital, Visakhapatnam, in which your wife was admitted for second time pregnancy, tried to bury the female infant baby alive with the help of one S. Lakshmana Rao, Security Guard of the said hospital, and attempted to cause death of the infant baby and that on a report given by Dudhi Sankara Rao, police registered the above said case against you and the said S. Lakshmana Rao and thus, you involvement in the above case amount to misconduct and unbecoming of a public servant, and in contravention of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby liable for punishment under Section 9 of A.P.C.S.(C.C.& A.) Rules, 1991” 2. The sum and substance of the charge is that the petitioner was involved in a crime case and such involvement would amount to misconduct, unbecoming of a public servant. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said article of charge and the disciplinary enquiry has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, challenging the said article of charge and the subsequent enquiry. 3. Sri G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was acquitted of all charges, in PRC.No.17 of 2017 (renumbered as SC.No.101 of 2018), before the IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam, on 28.06.2022. He would submit that the gravamen of the charge against the petitioner was involvement in a crime and once the petitioner has been acquitted in the said case, the basis of the charge itself goes and no further purpose would be served in conducting any further enquiry. 4. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the very same submission could be made before the enquiry officer. He would also submit that the future pending enquiries would get affected if this Court were to allow this Writ Petition by holding that the 3 enquires can be closed even before a finding has been given by the enquiry officer. 5. While, we are in agreement with the submission made by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, we would note that this case is a peculiar case where the charge against the employee is not on his conduct on the basis of independent facts. The charge against the petitioner is his involvement in a criminal case. As the criminal case itself has been dismissed, nothing further survives for an enquiry. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the enquiry initiated by the article of charge served on the petitioner. However, it is further clarified that this Judgment is not a Judgment for the proposition that pending enquiries can be closed merely on the ground of acquittal in a criminal case arising out of the same incident. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. BSM 4 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.22409 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 01.04.2025 BSM