APHC010497042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27305/2026 Between: 1. MOTUPALLI NARASIMHA RAJU, S/O NEELAKANTESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE,(UNDER SUSPENSION, GAJUWAKA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATANAM POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. RIO PLOT NO.339, RH COLONY, NEW DIBBAPALEM, PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM -530044 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT, A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATRHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522503. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530002. 2 4. A VENKAT RAO, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CRIMES) CUM ENQUIRY OFFICER,VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM -530002. 5. CH UMAKANTH, S/O AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, INSPECTOR OF POLICE CUM PRESENTING OFFICER IN ORAL ENQUIRY, CITY VR, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM-530002 ...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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating departmental inquiry proceedings against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo C. No. 26/PR/2025 dated 06.02.2026, despite the pendency of criminal proceedings in F.I.R. No. 556/2025 on the file of Gajuwaka Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, arising out of the same set of facts, charges, and evidence, and the further inaction of the Respondents in considering or passing orders on the Petitioners representations dated 23.02.2026 and 20.08.2026, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the Respondents not to proceed with or conduct any departmental inquiry pursuant to Charge Memo C. No. 26/PR/2025 dated 06.02.2026 until the final conclusion of the criminal proceedings in F.I.R. No. 556/2025 on the file of Gajuwaka Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam City IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Departmental Proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Charge Memo No. 26/PR/2025, dated 06-02-2026 and appointing the enquiry officer vide Procds 3 C.No.26/PR/2025 Dated 08-06 2026, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.27305 of 2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating departmental enquiry against the Petitioner by charge Memo C.No.26/PR/2025 dated 06.02.2026 despite the pendency of criminal proceedings in FIR No.556 of 2025 before the Gajuwaka Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Visakhapatnam. While so, a complaint was given by the subordinate Police Constables and Home Guards working in Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station stating that the Petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.15,30,000 /- by assuring them of high returns through investment in business ventures, crypto currency and share market. After receipt of the amount, the Petitioner stopped repaying the amounts and threatened the subordinates with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted at the instance of the Commissioner of Police. Pursuant thereto, a preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 09.01.2026 recording the statements of PC 3957 Peddinti Sanyasi Naidu, PC 1443 Doddi Sekhar, HG 379 Trinath and HG 406 Ravi that each of them had paid an amount of 5 Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner, wherein the following Articles of Charges were framed: “Sri M.Narasimha Raju was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) on 01-10-1993, promoted as Head Constable on 18-09- 2013 and as ASI on 06-09-2024. His date of birth is 04-03-1972. He is due to retire from service on superannuation by 31-03-2034. He is herein after called as government servant. The government servant is alleged to have exhibited gross misconduct and dereliction of duty by indulging in a systematic and deliberate course of misconduct by misusing his official position to collect an amount of Rs.15,30,000/- from his subordinate police personnel and Home Guards on false assurances of high and fixed returns through investment in share market, crypto currency and business ventures. When he stopped repaying the amounts and the subordinates demanded to return back their money, he allegedly threatened them with dire consequences. Thereby the government servant contravened Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 3. On the similar line, a criminal case was also registered against the Petitioner in FIR.No.556 of 2025, dated 23.12.2025 under Sections 21(1), (2), (3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and Section 318 (4) of BNS. It is stated that though charge sheet is filed, cognizance of the same is yet to be taken by the jurisdictional Criminal Court. 6 4. Pursuant to the Articles of Charge, enquiry was sought to be proceeded against the Petitioner and questioning the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,1 contending that the witnesses are identical in both the proceedings and departmental enquiry on the same evidence would cause prejudice to the Petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the criminal case is yet to be registered and proceeding with the departmental enquiry at this stage cannot be faulted. There is no complicated question of fact and law involved in this case in deferring the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Sravana Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 8. It is well settled that stay of departmental enquiry can be granted only when there are complicated questions of law and fact are involved apart from similarity of evidence. 1 (1999) 3 SCC 679 7 9. The ‘advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety' for staying departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case in the given facts. In the most cited judgement in this line of litigation till date, i.e. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the case law till that point of time framed principles for stay of disciplinary proceedings as guidance. The Paragraph No.22 thereof is extracted below; “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. 2 (1999) 3 SCC 679 8 (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.” 10. The point Nos.(ii) and (iii) would make it apparent that the stay of disciplinary enquiry can be granted only when the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and when the charge in the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact. Both the grounds should necessarily be available in a case, to stay the departmental enquiry. In the facts of this case, nothing is pointed out as to what are the complicated questions of law and fact involved in the case. 11. Further, the Articles of Charge is in a sense is independent of the criminal case as the departmental enquiry was initiated pursuant to an independent preliminary enquiry report on 09.01.2026 and was not based on the FIR or charge sheet. 9 12. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 24.09.2026 KLP