IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY .f TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE | PRESENT ^ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11217 OF 2025 Between: Jonnalagadda Sampurnamma, D/o. Jonnalagadda Anthony, Aged about 60 years, Occ Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Vuyyuru Police Station, Krishna District, R/o. D.No. 12-26/5G-FF-4, Sai Narasimha Apartments, Tadigadapa Donka Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P. - 520007. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada 3. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru District at Eluru. ...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Memorandum dated 25/01/2025 vide C.No.02/DCP- Tech.Wing/VJA/NTRPC/2025 and directing the Petitioner to attend the oral enquiry for the articles of charge issued vide Charge Memo No. 16/PR/2024, dated 22/06/2024 and proceeding with the departmental proceedings inspite of pendency of the criminal case in C.C. No. 142 of 2025 on the file of 1st Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, on the same set of charges and not taking any action on the Petitioner's representation dated 27/01/2025, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner. 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 stay the departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, vide charge memo dated 22-06-2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010219182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO; 11217/2025 Between: Jonnalagadda Sampurnamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.ll217of2025 -yy The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s;- “...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Memorandum dated 25/01/2025 vide C.No.02/DCP-Tech.Wing/VJ/VNTRPC/2025 and directing the Petitioner to attend the oral engulry for the articles of charge issued vide Charge Memo No.16/PR/2024, dated 22/06/2024 and proceeding with the departmental proceedings inspite of pendency of the criminal case in C.C.No.142 of 2025 on the file of Addl.JudIcial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid, on the same set of charges and not taking any action on the Petitioner’s representation dated 27/01/2025, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders... ” 2. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I for the respondents. 3. Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Vuyyuru Police Station. Petitioner has been foisted with Crime No.144 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Later, Investigating Authority has filed charge sheet and the same is now pending vide CC.No.142 of 2025 on the 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.11217 of 2025 file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid. On the same set of allegations, petitioner has been issued charge memo vide memo dated 22.06.2024. In sum and substance, both the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are emanating from the involvement of the petitioner in alleged incident of her daughter-in-law, given complaint for harassment. Now the Inquiry Officer has issued notice dated 25.01.2025 calling upon petitioner to attend to disciplinary proceedings, for which the petitioner has attended and sought for time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulged defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and placed reliance upon the judgment of M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited^, wherein at para No.22, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 1999 (3) see 679 4 % HCGR, J W.P.No.ll217of2025 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) (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 or as reflected in the charge- sheet. (iv) 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, 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.” 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the inquiry simultaneously and placed reliance upon the judgment of Secretary, Lucy 5 HCGR, J W.P.No.11217 of 2025 ¥ Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others^, 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.” However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings 6. were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.144 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending vide CC.No.142 of 2 (2019) 6 see 155 6 HC6R, J W.P.No.11217 of 2025 2025 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid. The list of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet and witnesses in departmental proceedings are more or less the same. 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. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Ani^, 7. 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. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of 8. India’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year. } \ Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuvzid, Krishna District, shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.142 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is needless to mention here the petitioner shall 9. ) i ^(2016) 9 see 491 f 1 7 HCGR, J W.P.No.11217 of 2025 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. 10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner of Police, NTR Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada City, Vijayawada 3. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru District at Eluru. 4. One CC to Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11217 of 2025 2 3 JUN 2ffi!5 ^ '^V^CgwitSecaan^^ «o DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS