APHC010086732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4564/2025 Between: 1. ELURU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAGHAVAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRESENTLY WORKING AT MACHARLA TOWN PS, PALANADU DISTRICT FORMALLY GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTURDISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, GUNTUR RANGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALANADU DISTRICT, FORMALLY GUNTUR 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 to pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in initiating and proceeding with parallel departmental enquiry against the petitioner based on the Article of charges issued in C.No.38/PR/2024 Dated. 03.08.2024 even though criminal case is pending vide SC.No.541/2024 on the file of the POCSO court Guntur on identical allegations registered U/s 509 r/w 34 IPC, 2 67b IT Act 2000-2008 12 r/w 11 POCSO Act as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by the Honble High court in WP.23315/2020 dated. 01.04.2021and in WP.No.15558/2024 Dated. 23.07.2024 and consequently direct the Respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry issued vide in C.No.38/PR/2024 Dated. 03.08.2024 till finalization of criminal case and to pass IA 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 direct the respondents not to proceed with the enquiry initiated vide C.No.38/PR/2024 Dated:03.08.2024 of 2nd respondent until finalization of criminal case pending against the petitioner vide SC.No.541/2024 on the file of the POCSO court Guntur and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 2. A charge memo vide C.No.38/PR/2024, dated 03.08.2024 (Ex.P1) was issued to the petitioner. The articles of charge issued to the petitioner would manifest that the exhibited gross dereliction of duty and the same is reprehensible grave. The petitioner contacted the complainant over the phone and spoke to her indecently and humiliated. Based upon the complaint lodged by the complainant, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandlamotta Police Station, registered case in Cr.No.102 of 2024 under Section 509 r/w 34 IPC, 67b IT Act 2000-2008 12 r/w 11 of POCSO Act 2012. Thereafter, the police filed the charge sheet before the Sessions Judge, Special Court of Speedy 3 trials of offences under POCSO Act, Child & Findlay Court, Guntur. The same was numbered as Sessions Case No.541 of 2024, the Sessions case is posted to 28.02.2025 for trial. 3. Be that as it may, acting upon the charge memo, the inquiry authority issued a radio message to the petitioner to attend the departmental inquiry on 20.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner attended the inquiry on 20.02.2025 and sought time. 4. As seen from the imputations in the charge memo and the averments in the charge sheet, the allegations are similar. 5. 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 place reliance upon the judgment of M.Paul Anthony v. 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 : (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 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 4 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.” 6. 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 Sequeira Trust and Another v. 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 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. 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 5 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. However, the cast at hand, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in a criminal case. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure – III and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly 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. 8. 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. 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 aforementioned departmental proceedings, initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned Special Judge for the Trial of POCSO cases, Guntur shall complete the criminal trial in the above Sessions Case No.541 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 6 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. 11. 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. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.02.2025 SNI 7 170 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4564 of 2025 Date: 24.02.2025 SNI