-I' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1810 OF 2025 too. 70 jo ^ AY 1 >; ! Between: P. Abdul Rahiman, S/o Late P. Abdul Wahab, aged about 55 of D.No. 13-93, Vadlapalem Street, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuramu District, formerly worked as H.C No. 1970 of Putlur P.S., Ananthapuramu District, working as H.C. No. 1970 of Tadipatri Town P.S., Ananthapuramu District. ...PETITIONER years, resident now AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu District, Ananthapuram 3. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri Sub Division, Tadipatri, Ananthapuramu District. u. ...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 order or a direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2 Respondent in initiating the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner i C. No. 2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024 by appointing Respondent as the Enquiry Officer through his nd in rd the 3 proceedings dated subject matter, statements and witnesses of the said departmental enquiry and the subject matter, statements and 02.08.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional when the witnesses of the criminal case in C.C. No. 901 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise) Court, Ananthapuramu are one and the same, and consequently to quash the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in C.No. 2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in departmental enquiry C.No. 2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024 initiated against the petitioner pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SYED KALEEMULLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI S.RAJU, ASST.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010035092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY .THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1810/2025 Between: 1.P ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/0 LATE P. ABDUL WAHAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 13-93, VADLAPALEM STREET, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, FORMERLY WORKED AS H.C NO. 1970 OF PUTLUR P.S., ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS H.C. NO. 1970 OF TADIPATRI TOWN P.S., ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANANTHAPURAMU. 3.THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TADIPATRI SUB DIVISION TADIPATRI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...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 to issue an order or a direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in 2 No. Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in C. initiating the 2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024 by appointing the 3rd Respondent as the Enquiry Officer through his proceedings dated 02.08.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional when the subject matter, statements and witnesses of the said departmental enquiry and the subject matter, statements and witnesses of the criminal case in C.C. No. 901 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise) Court, Ananthapuramu are one and the same, and consequently to quash the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in C. No. 2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024, and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in departmental enquiry C. No. 2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024 initiated against the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition,and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.KALEEMULLAS Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER; Heard Sri S.Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared on S.Raju behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner. Head Constable, Tadipatri Town P.S., Ananthapuramu District, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the 2 respondent C.NO.2236/A6/PR/2023, dated in initiating the Departmental Inquiry in 24.01.2024 by appointing the 3"^^ respondent as Inquiry Officer, as illegal and arbitrary. y 3 /■ A charge memo vide C.No.2236/A6/PR/2023, dated 24.01.2024 (Ex.P.1) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written defence (Ex.P.2) through the proper channel. As seen from Annexure of Ex.P.1, imputation against the petitioner is that he beat his brother’s daughter while she was obstructing the petitioner when the petitioner along with others tried to plant six feet of rock fencing. On the same set of allegations, a criminal case was registered vide Crime No.217 of 2023 on the file of Ananthapuramu IV Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Later, the police filed a charge sheet before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu and the same is assigned C.C.No.901 of 2023 (Ex.P.7). As seen from the endorsement, the summons were issued to the accused on 18.10.2023. 3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-lll and the list of witnesses filed along with the charge sheet are mostly similar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceed with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent authorities are proceeding with the departmental inquiry. 5. 6. In Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and Another^ wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 22 observed as follows; “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. V " 1999 (3) see 679 4 N 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 desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (ii) 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 or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iii) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) 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. (iv) (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 criminal 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.” Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on the other hand, would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the inquiry simultaneously and placed reliance upon the judgment of Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others^ wherein at Para No.17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows; 7. “17. It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we are concerned in the present matter can never be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal ^ 92019) 6 see 155 5 / proceedings were pending. The allegations made against Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable.” In the case at hand, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on a private complaint. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-lll and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly similar. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 8. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order. 9. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. 10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one yeaif^The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh.&Excise cases, Ananthapuramu shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.901 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is 11. ^ (2016) 9 see 491 I 6 needless to mention here the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul Anthony’s case. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SDl- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S H OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu District, Ananthapuramu. 3. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri Sub Division, Ananthapuramu District. 4. One CC to Sri Syed Kaleemulla, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies. Pradesh Tadipatri [OUT] gi HIGH COURT DATED:27/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1810 of 2025 UFEB 9^.% Current S ★ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS