APHC010111462025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5790/2025 Between: Kunchala Ravi Teja ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings in C.No.40/PR/2024 dated 16-08-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent Inspector General of Police, South Costal Zone, Guntur Range, Guntur, against the petitioner, pending the criminal trial in SC.No.49/S/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Sessions Judge (under SC and ST (POA) Act), Guntur District, as the same is arbitrary, contrary to law, illegal, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance until conclusion of the criminal trial in SC.No.49/S/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge (under SC and ST (POA) Act), Guntur District and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 16.09.2020. Basing on a report, which was lodged to the 6th respondent, by one Kum.Middepogu Shakeena D/o.Venkateswarlu, Crime No.159 of 2023 was registered with Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 376(2)(a)(i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 3 “I.P.C.”) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST (POA) Act”) and also filed Criminal Petition No.3826 of 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail and this Court has granted the same by an order dated 26.06.2023. The police have completed investigation and filed charge sheet and the matter is now pending as SC.No.49/S/2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge (under SC and ST (POA) Act), Guntur District. The said case is coming up for consideration of charges. 4. That being so, the petitioner was placed on suspension on 21.05.2023, as he was involved in the aforesaid case and later on came to be reinstated into service on 08.11.2023. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings in C.No.40/PR/2024 dated 16.08.2024, proposing to hold departmental inquiry in respect of Articles of Charges attached to the said proceedings for imposing major penalty under Rule 20 of the APCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991. Now, having received the said charge memo, the petitioner has sought for time and the matter is pending. As pending trial of criminal proceedings, the present charge on the same set of allegations is being inquired into, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to stay the departmental proceedings. 4 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 placed 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 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 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 5 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 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 6 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.” 7. However, in the present case, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in Crime No.159 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 376(2)(a)(i) and 506 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act. 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. 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. 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 7 10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge (under SC and ST (POA) Act), Guntur District, shall complete the criminal trial in the above S.C. 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. 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 counsel. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 10.03.2025 KBN 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 58 WRIT PETITION NO: 5790/2025 Date: 10.03.2025 KBN