P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 07.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2026 Date of uploading : 22.09.2026 APHC010395382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 20324 OF 2023 Between: 1. THURAKA VENKATESWARLU, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 54 years, R/o. Chillakur Village and Mandal, Working as Police Head Constable (1472), Kota Police Station Vakadu Circle, Tirupathi District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home), Secratariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Inspector General of Police, South Costal zone, Guntur Range, Guntur District 3. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer Cum Enquiry officer, Gudur, Gudur Sub Division, Tirupathi District. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Tirupati, Tirupati District ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: V SAI KUMAR P a g e | 2 Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 20324 OF 2023 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS questioning the order dated 17.06.2023 of the Respondent No.2 vide proceedings C. No. 156/APPL/2022, ROO. No. 754/2023 by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner in confirming the Order, dated 22.11.2022 of the Respondent No.3 bearing proceedings C.No. 11/PR-A9/2018, DO. No. 1232/2022 by imposing punishment against the petitioner is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Order, dated 17.06.2023 of the Respondent No.2 vide proceedings C. No. 156/APPL/2022, ROO. No. 754/2023 and the Order, dated 22.11.2022 of the Respondent No.3 bearing proceedings C.No. 11/PR-A9/2018, DO. No. 1232/2022 …” 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioner, while working as Head Constable at Sriharikota Marine Police Station, was implicated in Crime No.288 of 2018 of Chillakuru Police Station along with his wife, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and Section 56 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971, on allegations that he and his wife had conducted private chits and failed to repay the subscribers. After investigation, charge sheet was P a g e | 4 filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.111 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. 4. During the pendency of the criminal case, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the very same allegations. Therefore, petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.650 of 2019, and the Tribunal, by an order dated 06.04.2019, directed the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry until completion of the trial C.C.No.111 of 2019. Subsequently, by judgment dated 19.04.2021 in C.C.No.111 of 2019, petitioner and his wife were acquitted of all charges. 5. The case of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the acquittal in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority, by proceedings dated 22.11.2022, imposed the punishment of PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension and treated the suspension period from 28.08.2018 to 09.09.2020 as “Not on Duty”. Aggrieved by that, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 17.06.2023. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Respondents filed counter affidavit contending that petitioner, while working as Head Constable, involved in conducting unauthorized private chits along with his wife, thereby violating Rule 3 of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Based on the complaint lodged by a subscriber, a criminal case was registered against him, and departmental proceedings were also initiated. P a g e | 5 However, pursuant to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, the departmental enquiry was kept pending, till disposal of the criminal case. After the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.111 of 2019, departmental enquiry was resumed and, upon completion of the enquiry, the charge was held proved. Accordingly, disciplinary authority imposed punishment of PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension, which was subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority. 8. Case of the respondents is that mere acquittal in the criminal case does not absolve the petitioner of departmental misconduct, as the criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and governed by different standards of proof. It is further contended that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision under Rule 40 of the A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and sought dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that C.C.No.111 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur, culminated in acquittal of the petitioner, vide Judgment dated19.04.2021. He has placed the said judgment on record and submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and Section 56 read with 3 and 7 of AP Chit Fund Act, 1971 and no evidence is forthcoming against him to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, petitioner was found not guilty P a g e | 6 and acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). As such, the same has to be treated as Honourable Acquittal. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the charge memo issued against the petitioner was based solely on the allegations contained in the charge sheet filed in the aforesaid C.C.No.111 of 2019. No independent witnesses were examined in the departmental proceedings, and the witnesses and evidence relied upon therein are the same as those relied upon by the prosecution in the criminal case. As such, the charge in the departmental proceedings as well as criminal prosecution are out of the same set of facts, allegations, witnesses and material. Therefore, as the competent court recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the petitioner and as the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and as the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, petitioner is entitled for exoneration from the charges leveled against him in the departmental proceedings. 11. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in D.Khasim Saheb v. Director of Marketing1 , wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 8. Now it is well settled that when an employee was acquitted in the criminal case and it is an honourable acquittal, the finding of guilt recorded against him in the departmental enquiry and imposing major punishment against him on the basis of the same set of facts cannot be 1 2023: APHC:14692 P a g e | 7 sustained. The legal position in this regard is no more resintegra and the same has been well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others 2, held in para No.31 of the judgment as follows: In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the departmental enquiry as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction of proof between departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony case will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. 9. As per the facts of the above cited case also, both the criminal prosecution and the departmental enquiry were initiated against the employee therein on the same set of facts and allegations. He was found not guilty in the criminal case and he was acquitted. But in the departmental enquiry, he was found guilty and punishment was imposed against him. When the validity of the said punishment that was imposed against him in departmental enquiry is questioned, the apex Court while relying on the earlier judgments held that when both the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are initiated on the same set of allegations and facts and when the employee was acquitted in the criminal case that the finding of guilt in the domestic enquiry and the punishment imposed cannot be sustained. 12. Placing reliance on the above, learned counsel submitted that the both the criminal prosecution and the departmental enquiry were initiated against the employee on the same set of facts and allegations. Though the employee therein was acquitted in the criminal case, he was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and was consequently punished. Thereby, this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited therein, held that where both proceedings arises out of same set of allegations and facts and when the employee is acquitted in the criminal case, the finding of guilt 2 (2006) 5 SCC 446 P a g e | 8 recorded in the departmental enquiry and the consequential punishment cannot be sustained. 13. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that, though the charges were framed basing on the criminal prosecution lodged against the petitioner but the evidence and the charges are entirely different. Petitioner, being personnel of uniform force cannot indulge in such a heinous offence. Therefore, the disciplinary authority thought it fit to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge memo was issued and examined various witnesses. Though some of the witnesses in the criminal proceedings were also examined in departmental proceedings, an independent enquiry was done in the subject matter. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be construed as an automatic closure of disciplinary proceedings, unless both the proceedings are set out on same facts and circumstances. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, apart from the witnesses examined in the criminal proceedings, the respondent authorities examined an additional witness at Sl.No.6 of the list of witnesses appended to the charge memo. Therefore, it cannot be said that the departmental proceedings were based entirely on the same evidence and material as that of criminal prosecution. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings. P a g e | 9 14. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material on record. On perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner solely on the basis of his alleged involvement in the criminal case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and Section 56 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971, on allegations that he and his wife had conducted private chits and failed to repay the subscribers. The charge sheet filed by the prosecution was taken as C.C.No.111 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gudur. The criminal Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution held that there was no incriminating evidence establishing the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Accordingly, petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court. The respondents initiated the departmental enquiry by relying upon the statements of the witnesses cited in the criminal case, apart from one additional witness. The witnesses examined in the criminal case had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Thereby no evidence was found by the criminal Court to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. 15. It is well settled law that mere acquittal by criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit including of quashing of the departmental proceedings. However, if the charges in the departmental P a g e | 10 enquiry and criminal court are identical or similar and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same then the matter requires to be considered for appreciation basing on the findings recorded by the criminal court as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan3. 16. In the instant case, the charge memo was issued based on the allegations contained in the charge sheet, and the witnesses and evidence are one and the same in disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal proceedings, except one additional witness. Mere examining one additional witness in the departmental proceedings, by itself, cannot be said to constitute independent material sufficient to distinguish the disciplinary proceedings from the criminal prosecution, particularly when the charges, allegations, witnesses and circumstances substantially arise out of the same occurrence. Further, the criminal court had considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and after proper appreciation came to conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the charge in the departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution is out of the same set of facts, allegations, witnesses and material. Continuation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is unjust and cannot be allowed to stand in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred Ram lal’s case (cited supra). 3 (2024) 1 SCC 175 P a g e | 11 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent, confirming the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent, is hereby set aside. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.09.2026 Dvs P a g e | 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 20324 OF 2023 Date: 19.09.2026 Dvs