IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12319 OF 2025 Between: Peruru Vijay Kumar, S/o P.lssaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ: AR Head Constable-1801, R/o D.No. 9/146, Ukkayyapalle, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. ...Petitioner * AND Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Guntur^isfricT^*^^’ Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, K^rnoomistliLf ^ District, FAC Y.S.R. Kadapa 4. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Y.S.R.Kadapa 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 be pleased to issue a Writ may or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.2 in issuing the Proceedings vide C.No.C2/OPER-72(2)/2024, dated 03.12.2024 appointing the Enquiry enquiry against the Petitioner without culminating the Calendar cases in C.C.No.l958 of 2024 pending on the file of First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa C.C.No.136 of 2026 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampeta, Annamaiah District erstwhile Y.S. Officer to conduct Y.S.R.Kadapa District and R.Kadapa District as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, high handed, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of The Constitution of India apart from the procedure contemplated under The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 in appointing the enquiry officer vide C.No.C2/OPER-72(2)/2024, dated 03.12.2024. 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 pursuant to the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 vide C.No.C2/OPER- 72(2)/2024, dated: 03.12.2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 The Court made the following order: APHC010245312025 y- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 7 ' [3506] a: TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12319/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Peruru Vijay Kumar AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief; “ to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein, particularly Respondent No.2 in issuing the Proceedings vide C. No.C2/OPER-72(2)/2024, dated 03.12.2024, appointing the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the Petitioner without culminating the Calendar Cases in C.C.No.l958 of 2024 pending on the file of First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Y S R Kadapa District, and C.C. No. 136 of 2025 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampeta, Annamaiah District, erstwhile Y.S.R. Kadapa District, as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India erroneous 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.12319 of 2025 apart from the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and consequently, set aside the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 in appointing the enquiry officer vide C.No.C2/OPER-72(2)/2024, dated 03.12.2024 and pass...” \ \ 2. Petitioner is presently working as A. R. Head Constable. He got involved in Crime No. 18 of 2024 of Kadapa I Town Police Station U/G, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 386 r/w.34 of IPC, which after filing of charge-sheet has been numbered as C.C. No.1958 of 2024 on the file of the 1®* Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. Petitioner is stated to be also involved in another Crime No.325 of 2023 of Rajampeta U/G Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384 r/w.34 of IPC, in which also after filing of charge-sheet has been numbered as C.C.No.136 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Rajampeta, Annamaiah District, both cases are pending for trial. Petitioner has been issued charge memo, dated 03.12.2024 on the allegation that he got involved in Crime No. 18 of 2024 of Kadapa I Town Police Station U/G, which after filing of charge-sheet, presently now pending in C.C. No.1958 of 2024 on the file of the 1®* Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The list of witnesses shown in the charge-sheet filed in Crime No. 18 of 2024 and the witnesses referred in Annexure-IV to Articles of Charge are more or less similar. CGR, J. W.P.No.12319of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as already criminal proceedings are pending for trial, proceeding with departmental proceedings and further disclosing of defence in these proceedings would cause hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. 5. In Capt. Paul Anthony v. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd/ 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 there is no bar in their being can proceed simultaneously as conducted simultaneously, though separately, (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal j 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, (iii) 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. 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, (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. on case (iv) 1 (1999) 3 see 679 4 CGR, J. W.P. No. 12319 of 2025 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.” 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, 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 v. Kailash Ramesh TandeP, wherein at Para No. 17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows; “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 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.” 7. In the case at hand, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No. 18 of 2024 of Kadapa I Town Police Station U/G, which after filing of charge-sheet. presently now pending in C.C. No. 1958 of 2024 on the file of the 1®* Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The list of witnesses mentioned 2 (2019) 6 see 155 5 CGR, J. W.P.No.12319 of 2025 in Annexure-IV 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 and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 8. In State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag^, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the Criminal Trial expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order. as 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 year. The learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, shall complete the trial in the above C.C. No. 1958 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. Similarly, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajampeta, Annamaiah District, shall also complete the trial in C.C.No.136 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible. one ^(2016) 9 see 491 6 CGR, J. W.P.No.12319of2025 preferably, within one year. It is needless to mention here that the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal asking for adjournments. cases without 11. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the for expeditious disposal of the If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal cases, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul Anthony’s case^ concerned Courts criminal cases. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration any, in this case shall stand closed. if ASS^ANT REGISTRAR /%ECTft 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool Kurnool District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Annamaiah District, FAC Y.S.R Kadapa District. ^ 4. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 5. One CC to Sri A K Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To, OFFICER RAM HIGH COURT DATED:06/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12319 of 2025 5 H MAY 2025: m ^ . Current Secuon a C9 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS