IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 'V' TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH v' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE " PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6105 OF 2025'^-*" Between: Shaik Mahaboob Basha, S/o Mahammad Khasim, Aged 58 years, Panchayat Secretary, Donakonda Village and Mandal, Prakasam District Presently working at Kogantivaripalem Gram Panchayat, Atchampet Mandal (Palnadu District), Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of A.P., Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ongole, Prakasam District. V-* 4. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 5. The Inquiry Officer, (Chief Executive Officer), Z.P.P., Ongole, Prakasam District 6. The District Panchayat Officer, Naras^opet, Prakasam District. n^l 7. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad Office, Atchampet, Prakasam District. P'iW ...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, things and deeds of Respondents in proceedings with the Departmental Proceedings N0.1369257/CPR and RDA/IG-ACB/2021 dated 11- 07-2024 issued by 4th Respondent in appointing 5th Respondent as Inquiry Authority against the Petitioner, further issuing enquiry notices by 5th Respondent for enquiry in Notice No.E8/1922/2024 dated 21-012025 with further dates, which is illegal, irregular, unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the settled principles of Law as well as APCS (C.C and .A) Rules 1991 and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to Stay the Departmental Proceedings No.1369257/CPR and RD/VIG-ACB/2021 dated 11-07-2024 issued by 4th Respondent till the finalization of Criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 14/2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. 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 of all further Departmental Proceedings NO.1369257/CPR&RDA/IG-ACB/2021 dated 11-07-2024 issued by 4th Respondent, which are conducting by 5th Respondent pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s MARUPILLI SARADA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5; GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6&7: M/S. B.V. APARNA LAKSHMI, SC for ZPP, MPP&GP The Court made the following order: APHC010111612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6105/2C25 Between: Shaik Mahaboob Basha ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MARUPILL1 SARADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following relief: “to declare the action, things and deeds of Respondents in proceedings with the Departmental Proceedings NO.1369257/CPR&RDA/IG-ACB/2021, dated 11.7.2024, issued by 4*'^ Respondent in appointing 5**’ Respondent as inquiry Authority against the Petitioner, further issuing enquiry notices by 5^'^ Respondent for enquiry in 2 CGR, J W.P. No.6105 of 2025 Notice N0.E8/1922/2024 dated 21.01.2025 with further dates, which is illegal, irregular, unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to the settled principles of Law as well as ARCS (C.C&A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to Stay the Departmental Proceedings No.1369257/CPR& RD/VIG- ACB/2021, dated 11.07.2024, issued by 4‘^ Respondent till the finalization of Criminal proceedings in C.C. No 14/2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore and to pass such other orders.” Petitioner, while working as Panchayat Secretary of 2. Donakonda Gram Panchayat, on the allegation of accepting bribe, a crime was registered, thereafter, upon filing of charge sheet, same got numbered as C.C. No. 14 of 2024 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Nellore, for offences punishable under Section 9(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which is pending trial. The respondents simultaneously have initiated departmental proceedings and issued articles of charge which are framed in pursuance to the receiving of legal gratification, which is subject matter in C.C. No. 14 of 2024. In pursuance to the same, the / 3 CGR, J W.P. No.6105 of 2025 iff'' 5*^ respondent has been appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed, the petitioner is being called upon to attend enqiry by submitting written explanation. Since the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.14 of 2014 are pending for trial, as the subject matter of departmental proceedings also being same. disclosing of any defence by petitioner would .prejudice his case before the trial commences. List of witnesses mentioned in the Annexure - III and those mentioned before the criminal court filed along with charge sheet much more or less similar. 3. Heard Smt.Marupilli Sarada, learned counsel for petitioner. learned Government Pleader for Services - I for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6, and Smt.B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for 5^^ respondent. 4. In Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and Another^ wherein, the Hon’ble Apex .Court at Para 22 observed as follows; “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: 1 1999 (3) see 679 4 CGR, J W.P, No.6105 of 2025 (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 I 5 'tv CGR, J W.P. No.6105 of 2025 >■ he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on the 5. 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: 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. 2 (2019) 6 see 155 ( I 6 CGR, J W.P. No.6105 of 2025 therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the nominee of Respondent Awardee Teacher unsustainable.” 6. In the case at hand, the departmental initiated against the petitioner based trap. The list of witnesses mentioned of witnesses in the charge sheet circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings continue, the petition'eF is required to divulge his defence and it Will cause prejudice to the petitioner. In State Bank of India and Others Anr^, the Hon’ble Apex Court issued Court to complete the Criminal Trial not later than one year from the date of the order. Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank case, this Court deems it departmental proceedings, for one year. 1 and of the State was completely wrong and proceedings were on his involvement in ACB in Annexure-lll and the list are mostly similar. In the are allowed to 7. V. Neelam Nag and directions to the Sessions as expeditiously as possible 8. of India’s appropriate to stay the 9, Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned (2016) 9 see 491 7 CGR, J W.P. No.6105 of 2025 .4: for the Trial of SPE & ACB cases, Nellore shall Special Judge complete the criminal trial in the above C.C. No.14 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is needless to mention here that the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case the without asking for adjournments. of this order before the The petitioner shall file a copy concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul Anthony’s case. 10. case. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. 11. No costs. petitions pending miscellaneous As a sequel, consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. section officer //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Prl. Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Dev^t^^nent Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi. Amaravathi, Guntur State of AP, District. 2. The Prl. Secretary, Home Departm^t, State of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. * Jt 3. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, On^e, Prakasam District. 4. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Tadep^, Guntur District. 5. The Inquiry Officer, (Chief Executive Officer), Z.P.P., Ongole, Prakasam District 6. The District Panchayat Officer, Narasaraopet, Prakasam District. 7. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad ^ Office, Atchampet, Prakasam District. 8. One CC to M/s. Marupilli Sarada Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to M/s. B. V Aparna Lakshmi SC for ZPP, MPP and GP [OPUC] Two CCs to GP For Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. 10. [OUT] Three CD Copies 11. GSC HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6105 of 2025 of X 2t MAR 2025 B ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS