APHC010626972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 32541/2025 Between: Fazul Rahman ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. Sri Syam Sundar Rao, learned counsel for R.3. The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.32541 of 2025 ORDER : This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent–authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.140 Home (SC.A) Department, dated 14.09.2018 pending C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under: The Petitioner is working as a Sub-Inspector since 2013 and has been discharging his duties ever since. While so, based on a Complaint made by Y. Bharati, a case in Cr.No.2/RCT/RJY/2017 under Section 7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging the demanding of a bribe of Rs.5,000/- for doing an official favour. A trap was laid and on the basis of the trap, the Police filed Charge sheet after investigation, which was numbered as C.C.No.1 of 2019 before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Rajahmundry. Later, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 14.09.2018, for sanctioning of the prosecution against the Petitioner. 3 3. While so, the Respondent No.4 issued a charge memorandum vide Memo No.1506/P1/2017, dated 31.12.2018 under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services ( Classifaction, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, with regard to the very same allegations. 4. Learned counself for the Petitioner submits that the criminal case and the disciplinary case are with respect to the same incident and it will cause prejudice to the Petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the enquiry simultaneously and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others2. 6. Reasoning: The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.2/RCT- RJY/2017. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexures and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are almost similar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 4 and another3, balancing the interest of department for expeditious conclusion of departmental enquiry as well as the prejudice of departmental enquiry on the criminal case affecting the delinquent, 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. Paragraphs 27 to 29 thereof are extracted below: 27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of Respondent 1 of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightaway. Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending against Respondent 1 to be decided expeditiously but not later than one year from the date of this order. The trial court shall take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight, when necessary. 28 . We also direct that Respondent 1 shall extend full cooperation to the trial court for an early disposal of the trial, which includes cooperation by the advocate appointed by her. 29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1 shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to Respondent 1 of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 5 (i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.140 Home (SC.A) Department, dated 14.09.2018 shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today. (ii) The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases Rajamahendravaram, shall complete the trail in C.C.No.1 of 2019, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year considering the fact that the departmental proceedings are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. (iii) The Petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court and shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. (iv) If the trial is not concluded within the period of one year, the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with. (v) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.11.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 32541/2025 Dt. 25.11.2025 eha