1 APHC010586552022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 35378/2022 Between: 1. PODURI MADHU, S/O. KONDALARAO, 51 YRS., WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE NO.229 AT DWARAKA TIRUMALA POLICE STATION, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS , VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ELURU RANGE, ELURU. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Heard Sri Javvaji Sarat Chandra, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to impugned Charge Memos vide C.No.5875/A6/2019 dt. 2-8- 2021 and C.No.06/A6/2022 dt. 31-1-2022 of the 3rdrespondent and quash the same by holding them as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, as projected by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as a Civil Police Constable in West Godavari Unit, Eluru on 01.03.1995; that he had finished his probation on 01.09.1997; that he became eligible for being promoted as Head Constable after having undergone his training; that on or about 25.01.2019, the name of the Writ Petitioner was also included in „C‟ list of Police Constables fit to act as Head Constables; that the Petitioner was not considered for promotion as he was facing criminal trial in three criminal cases while his batchmates and his juniors were promoted as Head Constables (C.C.Nos.90/2016, 93/2016 & 89/ 2016). It is submitted that the Petitioner was acquitted between March to October, 2021 in all the three criminal cases. The finding of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole is that the Petitioner was not found guilty for the offences charged. Mostly, the offences were under Sections 323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. While the Petitioner was acquitted between March to October 2021, the Departmental Proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner on or about 2nd August, 2021. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner is seeking quashing of the Departmental Proceedings initiated against him. 3 4. Opposing the prayer in the Writ Petition, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I has placed reliance on the following Judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court: i. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. V. AppalaSwamy : (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 49 : para Nos.12 to 14, ii. Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Ors. : (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 515 : para No.14, iii. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani : (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 530 : para Nos.15 to 18 and, iv. Meer Mubhashir Ali Vs. The State of Telangana : Writ Petition No.19217 of 2018 : para Nos.5 to 8 & 9. 5. Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Services-I has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter Affidavit. The charge framed against the Writ Petitioner as per the Proceeding bearing C.No.5875/A6/2019 dated 02.08.2021 (Ex.P.8) is as under: “Statement of Articles of charge framed against Sri P. Madhu, PC 229 of Tadepalligudem Traffic PS, W.G. District “for exhibiting criminal misconduct, developed illegal intimacy with a married woman and later attempted to murder the husband of the woman and thereby involved as accused in Cr.No.196/2012 U/s 452, 307 R/W 34 IPC of Kovvur Town PS. Thus, he behaved in the manner unbecoming a member of Police Department and also violated the provisions of Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 6. This Court has perused the charge. It transpires from the record that the cause of action in the criminal cases is the same as that of Departmental Proceedings. The allegation made in the criminal case has a nexus with the Article of charge framed against the Writ Petitioner in the Departmental Proceedings. The alleged incident is supposed to have taken place on 4 18.10.2012 while the Departmental Proceeding has been initiated on 02.08.2021. There is a delay of about 9 years from the date of occurrence of the incident. The Counter Affidavit does not disclose any reasons for initiating the Departmental enquiry almost after 9 years from the date of occurrence of the alleged incident. 7. It is a settled law that it is not desirable to initiate Departmental Proceeding and subject delinquent employee to departmental enquiry until the evidence in the criminal Court is complete. However, on perusal of the pleadings filed by the Respondents, it does not indicate as to why the delay has occurred in initiating the Departmental Proceedings so belatedly. It is a settled law that inordinate delay in initiation of the Departmental Proceeding is a good reason for quashing the Departmental Proceeding. 8. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed on record several Judgments to indicate that the delay in Departmental Proceeding is a ground for quashing the Departmental Proceeding itself. Following are the judgments: i. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan : (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 154 : para No.19, ii. Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S. Samuthiram : (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 598 : para No.24 and, iii. K. Narayana Vs. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad and Ors. : 2020 (5) ALD 528 (TS). 9. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that there is inordinate delay on the part of the of the Official Respondents in initiating Departmental Proceeding in the year 2021 while the Writ Petitioner was arrayed as an accused in an incident that occurred in the year 2012. Therefore, the Departmental Proceedings initiated against the Writ Petitioner are unsustainable. Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned Charge Memos bearing C.No.5875/A6/2019 dated 02.08.2021 and 5 C.No.06/A6/2022 dated 31.01.2022 issued to the Writ Petitioner are hereby quashed. No Order as to Costs. 10. Needles to state that the case of the Writ Petitioner may be considered for promotion in accordance with law. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 05.06.2025 Vns