APHC010069812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3754/2025 Between: S.v. Jhonson, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, Assistant Sub Inspector filed the above writ petition to declare the action of respondents in proceedings with the departmental inquiry in pursuance of charge Memo C.No.31/P1/(C)/2023, dated 01.11.2024, pending criminal proceedings in C.C.No.640 of 2024 in Crime no.157/2024 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, as illegal and arbitrary. 2 3. The Station House Officer, Eluru III Town Police Station, registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.157 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC, based upon a complaint made by one M.Murali Krishna. The respondent authorities initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 01.11.2024 (referred supra). 4. As seen from Annexure-I, Article of charge, the petitioner exhibited gross misconduct by cheating Sri Munubarthi Murali Krishna of Dondapadu Village and his sons to the tune of Rs.3,36,002/- on the pretext of providing a job as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department to Sri Chaitanya Krishna, younger son of the said Sri Munubarthi Murali Krishna etc. The contents of the charge sheet, filed along with the writ petition would also disclose that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for employing the complainant’s younger son of Sri M.Murali Krishna and failed to repay the amount. The list of witnesses in Annexure-III of the charge memo and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly similar. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the pendency of the criminal case, the respondent authorities are proceeding with the departmental inquiry and issued a radio message dated 23.01.2025. Learned counsel would also submit that if the respondent authorities proceed with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment in Capt.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1, 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 : 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 3 (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) 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. (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. (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.” 7. 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 Others2 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 2 92019) 6 SCC 155 4 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.” 8. However, in the case at hand, the imputations against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry and the averments in the charge sheet are similar and the witnesses are also 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. 9. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr3, 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. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act at Eluru- cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru shall complete the criminal trial in the C.C.No.640 of 2024 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 cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 5 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. 12. 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. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Date: 25.02.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3754/2025 Date: 25.02.2025 KA