APHC010905902018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 43851 OF 2018 Between: P.V. Ramana, S/o late Krishna Murthy aged 58 years R/o 64-14-10/1 A, Pratap Nagar Kakinada, East Godavari District ...Petitioner AND The Director (Offshore) and Disciplinary Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Office of Director(Offshore) 5th Floor, Deendayal Urja Bhavan 5, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 Dr P R K Raju, Ex-General Manager(HR) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited ‘Pratha’, Plot No. 655, Crescent Street J.N. Road, Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry-533103 1. 2. ...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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 1st 389/6/PVR/60250D and A/2018 dated 26.07.2018 and the consequential Order dated 16.10.2018 appointing the 2nd Respondent as Inquiry Officer as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same till disposal of the C.C.No. 3 of 2018 before the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 grant Stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Memorandum No. 389/6/PVR/60250D&A/ 2018, dated 26-07-2018 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D S SIVADARSHAN The Court made the following order: i to V APHC010905902018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 43851/2018 Between: P.V. RAMANA, S/0 UATE KRISHNA MURTHY AGED 58 YEARS R/0 64-14-10/1 A, PRATAP NAGAR KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE DIRECTOR OFFSHORE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, OIL OFFICE OF AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED DIRECTOR(OFFSHORE) 5TH FLOOR, DEENDAYAL URJA BHAVAN 5, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070. 2.DR P R K RAJU, EX-GENERAL MANAGER(HR) OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED PRATHA', PLOT NO. 655, CRESCENT STREET J.N. ROAD, VENKATESWARA NAGAR RAJAHMUNDRY- 533103. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.DSSIVADARSHAN The Court made the following: ORDER: 4 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, deciare the action of the 1st 389/6/PVR/60250D and A/2018 dated 26.07.2018 and the consequential Order dated 16.10.2018 appointing the 2 Respondent as inquiry Officer as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same nd / r : w , -0 2 till disposal of the C.C.No.3 of 2018 before the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam. ” Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Sri D.S.Sivadarshan, learned counsel for Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has 1$ been working in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited in different posts and has been working as a Deputy General Manager (civil) since 2008. Learned counsel would further submit that, on the complaint given by one Sri David Raju about demand of bribe by the Petitioner for doing an official favour, after conducting trap, and a case in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam was registered against the Petitioner. It is submitted that. Departmental Proceedings were also initiated against the Petitioner without waiting for the outcome of the charges levelled against the Petitioner by the CBI. It is further submitted that interim stay of departmental proceeding was granted by this Court. Proceedings are quasi judicial and the verdict of the Court is binding on the said proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that the list of witnesses going to be examined in the Departmental Proceedings are identical in C.C.No.3 of 2018 and there is every possibility of making the witnesses to speak in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the same lines of the Departmental Proceedings. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned memorandum. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State 2. 3. The Departmental 3 Bank of India and others vs. P.Zadenga\ Stanzen Tototetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish and others^ Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others vs. Sarvesh Berry^ and the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in N.Shankar Prasad vs. State of A.P. and others'*. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondents would submit that, in view 4. of the lodging of the criminal case, the Petitioner was suspended and was w reinstated into service and subsequently, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel would further submit that initiation of departmental proceedings binding the criminal trial would not amount to an automatic stay and that registration of a criminal case in relation to the very would not preclude the employer to initiate ned act! I m rv i I n r\ri V./ I I same 111 departmental proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. As seen from the material placed on record, admittedly, the Petitioner joined in O.N.G.C., initially as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the year 1984 and subsequently, promoted to various categories and finally promoted as Deputy General Manager (Civil) in the year 2008 and was posted at Kakinada Asset and was discharging his duties as such. That being so, based on the complaint given by Sri David Raju, who is the Business Partner in M/s.TXCON Project Engineers, Visakhapatham on the allegation that the Petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.8,00,000/- for not blacklisting his Company, CBI laid trap on the Petitioner on 30.08.2017, recovered the alleged illegal I 5. ' (2023) 10 see 675 - (2014)3 see 636 ^ (2005) 10 see 471 ^ 2020(1) ALD 412 (AP) 4 gratification of Rs.4,00,000/-. A criminal case in C.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for CBi Cases, Visakhapatnam, was also registered against the Petitioner and he was placed under suspension. Simultaneously, Departmental Proceedings were also initiated vide Memorandum No.389/6/PVR/60250/D&A/2018 dateS 26.07.2028 directing the Petitioner to submit his written statement within ten days from the date of receipt of said Memorandum. The Petitioner submitted an explanation dated 12.08.2018 to Respondent No.1 to drop the proceedings or to defer the till the completion cf trial before the trial Court, as the charges are identical. However, the same has not been considered by Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. In the same set of facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Girish’ case referred to supra, categorically held as follows: “19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests ofjustice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial Is not completed within ibe^eriod of one year ffom the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to 6. same 7. non- or - T- 5 take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall In that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order. ” Considering the facts and circumstances of the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the three Courts below staying disciplinary proceedings, however, by fixing a time frame to the trial Court to complete the trial. It is settled law thj^t there is no legal bar to hold the simultaneous disciplinary proceedings initiated pending criminal trial. Stay of disciplinary proceedings is an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to cause prejudice to the defence put forth by the charged employee before the trial Court. 8. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarvesh Berry’s case (supra), while referring to its case in Capt.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited®, held at Para No. 12 as follows; “In Capt. M. Paul ^nthony's case (supra) this Court indicated some of the fact situations which would govern the question whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance during pendency of a criminal case. In paragraph 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarised. They are as follows: (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 ' (1999) 3 see 679 6 desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (Hi) 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 reflected in the charge-sheet, (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (Hi) 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, (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 crimHnal 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." In N.Shankar Prasad’s case (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the similar set of facts, held as follows: ‘15. Now by catena of judicial precedents rendered by both the Apex Court and also various High Courts, including our High Court, the law is fairly well-settled that there is no bar or impediment for maintaining both the criminal case and the departmental enquiry simultaneously. However, when the criminal prosecution launched against the employee and the departmental enquiry ordered against him are based on same set of facts and when there are complicated questions of law and fact Involved in the criminal case and on consideration of the charge against the employee in the criminal case and the Articles of Charge framed against the employee in departmental enquiry, if it is found that if departmental enquiry is taken up simultaneously with the criminal trial, and if the defence available to the employee in the criminal case Is revealed in the departmental:enquiry before the trial in the criminal case is concluded and if the disclosure of his defence in the departmental enquiry may have the effect of causing prejudice to his defence In the criminal trial, then the Courts can order to stay the proceedings of the departmental enquiry till the trial in the criminal case is concluded. There is absolutely no controversy relating to this settled legal position. d or as 10. ^ . 7 22. However, in view of the ratio laid down in the other judgments as discussed supra, this Court is satisfied that both the criminal prosecution and the departmental enquiry are based on the same set of facts and interlinked with each other and the continuation of proceedings in the departmental enquiry would have the effect of revealing the defence of the accused l causing prejudice in the criminal trial. So, this Court is constrained to order to stay the proceedings of the departmental enquiry at present. ” 11. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the Petitioner, by way of his written statement, that, if he discloses his line of defence in the departmental enquiry, there would be an amount of miscarriage of justice before the commencement of trial in the trial Court. If he reveals his defence either by way of cross examination**to the Complainant, the same will be known to the Investigating Officer. In view of the facts of the present case and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that there is an interlink between the departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution since they are based on the same set of facts. Such being the case, it is desirable to continue the stay of the departmental proceedings. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the stay of departmental proceedings granted earlier shall continue, learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the case, as expeditiously ti possible and report the progress of the case to the Registry for every three months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand 12. The as closed. % Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Director (Offshore) and Disciplinary Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Office of Director(Offshore) 5th Floor, Deendayal Urja Bhavan 5, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 One CC to Sri. K Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. D S Sivadarshan Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies GSC 1. 2. 3. 4. HIGH COURT DATED:07/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 43851 OF 2018 andS^ S 15 SEP 2025 ^ Curreni asciion m DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS