IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4973 OF 2025 Between: Teegala Naresh, S/o Vali Sugrivu, Aged 37. Occ Police Constable D.No.2-162, Jambupatnam village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. R/o ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, 4. The Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crimes. Rajamahendravaram , East Godavari District. 5. The Inspector of Police, Korukonda circle. East Godavari District. 6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi police station. East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to prayed that this Writ of Mandamus respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner praying that declaring action of the w % pursuant to Charge memo dated 27-9-2024 in C.NO.2425/A3/2024 based on which criminal case is pending vide CC No. 1200 of 2024 on the file of Hon ble Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unauthorized, without jurisdiction, irrational and void apart from being violative of Articles 14 the Constitution of India and 21 of consequently grant stay of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Charge memo dated 27-9-2024 in C.NO.2425/A3/2024 until conclusion of the criminal trial in CC No. 1200 of 2024 pending on the file of Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to charge memo dated 27-9- 2024 in C.No.2425/A3/2024. Counsel for the PetitioneriSRI. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010094462025 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: 4973/2025 Between: 1.TEEGALA NARESH, S/0 VALI SUGRIVU, AGED 37, OCC POLICE CONSTABLE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/0 D.NO.2-162, JAMBUPATNAM VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARY, BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. SECRETARIAT 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, 4.THE ADDL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIMES RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM,EAST GODAVARIDISTRICT. 5.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORUKONDA CIRCLE. GODAVARI DISTRICT. EAST 6.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANAPARTHI POLICE STATION. EAST GODAVARI 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 2 pleased to pleased to prayed that this Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Charge memo dated 27-9-2024 in C.NO.2425/A3/2024based on which criminal case is pending vide CC No. 1200 of 2024 on the file of Honble Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unauthorized, without jurisdiction, irrational and void apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently grant stay of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Charge memo dated 27-9-2024 in C.NO.2425/A3/2024 until conclusion of the criminal trial in CC No. 1200 of 2024 pending on the file of Honble Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram and pass 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 disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to charge memo dated 27-9- 2024 in C.No.2425/A3/2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 to 6. Petitioner, Police Constable, filed the above writ petition, assailing the action of respondent authority, in proceeding with the charge memo vide C.NO.2425/A3/2024, dated 27.09.2024 (Ex.P1) issued by the 3'^ respondent pending C.C.No.1200 of 2024, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. t. w 3 IKJ A charge memo vide C.No.2425/A3/2024, dated 27.09.2024 (Ex.P1) was issued to the petitioner. As seen from Annexure-I Articles of Charge, the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner is because of his involvement in Crime No. 149 of 2024 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Rajanagaram Police Station. 3. The police also filed a charge sheet on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram and the same is numbered C.C.No.1200 of 2024, against the petitioner and two others. As seen from Annexure-lll, the list of witnesses in the charge memo and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly similar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceed with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent authorities are proceeding with the departmental inquiry. 5. In Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and Another^ wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 22 observed as follows; 6. “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (i) 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) 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 (iii) ' 1999 (3) S€C 679 ■f 4 9i 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. 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. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed 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.” 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 Others^ wherein at Para No.17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: (iv) (V) on 7. “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.” ' 92019) 6 see 155 5 1^- In the case at hand, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on a private complaint. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-lll and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly similar. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defence, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 8. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the i Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order. 9. f Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State Bank of India’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the aforementioned departmental proceedings, for one year. 10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.1200 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. 11. 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. ^(2016) 9 see 491 6 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. 12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principle Junior Civil Judge -cum- JFCm, Rajahmundry 2. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 3. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram, 5. The Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crimes, Rajamahendravaram , East Godavari District. 6. The Inspector of Police, Korukonda circle. East Godavari District. 7. The Sub Inspector of Police, Anaparthi police station. East Godavari District. 8. One CC to SRI P. VIVEK, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 10. Three C.D. Copies [OUT] nm HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4973 of 2025 ANOTjq --S OW 18 MAR 2025 m ps>‘ Current Section '■-''15.“.:::. DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS