APHC010082482022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5199/2022 Between: 1. G CHANDRA BABU, S/O LATE G.CHENGAIAH HINDU , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC .HEAD CONSTABLE HC 2152, OFFICE .OF THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEDDA TIPPASAINUDRAM POLICE ,STATION, RESIDENT AT .D.NO.1-94, STATE BANK OF INDIA COLONY, PUTTUR-517 583, -CHITTOOR DISTRICT (AP). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) DEPARTMENT BLOCK NO.2, VELAGAPUDI, AMA4AVATFIL GUNTUR DISTRICT (AP). 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT (AP). 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. 4. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER AND INQUIRY OFFICER, CHITTOOR SUB-DIVISION, CHITTOOR 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 tobe'pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the departmental proceedings/inquiry ordered vide Impugned Order No. File No.POLCTR ADMNOIVFPR/126/2018-A SEC-SPCTR--C. No .A7/0EPR/31/18 dated 12- 12-2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police and Respondent No.3 in criminal case CC No.10 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Court of the Judicial First 2 Class Magistrate Satyavedu involving the same set of facts and circumstances, the same article of charge, the same witnesses and the same evidence in the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings, be quashed on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble trial Court delivered on 15 February 2022 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay of all further proceedings departmental proceedings/inquiry ordered vide Impugned Order No. File No. POLCTR-ADMNOMPR/126/2018-A SEC¬SPCTR--C. No.A7/OEPR/31/18 dated 12-12-2018 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONDU SEKHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri Bondu Sekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable and was subsequently promoted to the Post of Head Constable. While discharging his duties as Head Constable, he was also entrusted with the task of assigning daily duties to the station staff. A woman constable was allotted for computer operation work. Since she was not performing her duties properly, she was cautioned to be punctual in the discharge of her official responsibilities. 3 3. However, she lodged a complaint before Police Station alleging that the petitioner had misbehaved with her on 13.11.2018. Based on the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354-A IPC. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner surrendered himself before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Satyavedu on 20.11.2018. On the very same day, he was placed under suspension from service. Subsequently, A Charge Memo dated 12.12.2018 was issued to him, alleging that the petitioner had exhibited misconduct by behaving indecently with a female colleague. Thereafter, on 20.02.2019, a charge sheet was filed and the criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.10 of 2019. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to attend the departmental inquiry scheduled on 27.02.2019. Since the said information was not received in time, he sought deferment of the inquiry. As the departmental proceedings were founded on the same set of facts and evidence involved in the pending criminal trial, continuation of such proceedings was likely to cause prejudice to him. Accordingly, while the criminal case in C.C.No.10 of 2019 was pending, the petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal seeking a stay of the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal, by way of interim orders, kept the proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal trial. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. Thereafter, upon conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the Inquiry Officer resumed the departmental inquiry and summoned the 4 witnesses to appear before him for inquiry on 19.02.2022. The petitioner thus approached this Court challenging the proceedings of initiation of departmental enquiry against him. It is contended that the departmental proceedings are initiated on the same set of facts, same set of witnesses and documents as involved in the proceedings before the Criminal Court. 5. The respondents filed their counter affidavit contending that the charges framed against the petitioner were not solely on account of his involvement in the criminal case but also on account of the misconduct exhibited by him in the discharge of his official duties. It was specifically stated that misbehaving with a female colleague would, in itself, amount to misconduct under the Conduct Rules. And relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Sitaram Mishra and Another. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Others and Capt. M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another argues that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on account of the alleged misconduct, based on the registration of the criminal case, which ended ultimately in acquittal of the petitioner and the same was an honourable acquittal, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued on the same set of facts and the same witnesses are proposed to be examined. 5 7. Considered the rival submissions. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony, observed as follows: “34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.'’ The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex-parte departmental proceedings, to stand. 35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.” And in the case of G.M.Tank, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when departmental enquiry and the criminal trial proceedings are based on an 6 identical set of facts, evidence, and circumstances, and when the Criminal Court proceedings ended in acquittal, continuation of departmental proceedings on the same set of facts is unjustified. In the facts of the case, the petitioner has been charged with misconduct on account of indecent behavior with his female colleague. The Criminal Court's finding is that there is no evidence that the petitioner was present at the police station on the date of the incident. Having regard to the same, continuation of the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of facts is not just and the same is not sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order in File No.POLCTR-ADMNOMPR/126/2018-A SEC-SPCTR- C.No.A7/OEPR/31/2018, dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police-3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:19.09.2025 ANI 7 730 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.5199 of 2022 Date:19.09.2025 ANI