APHC010300682026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15695/2026 Between: K. Praveen Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V MAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15695 of 2026 ORDER : This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent–authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide Memorandum of Charge in C.No.03/C2/PR/RO/2024, dated 14.02.2025, pending PRC No.13/2024 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class ( Excise Court), Ananthapuramu, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under: The Petitioner is working as a Reserve Sub-Inspector, Armed Reserve, Ananthapuramu. While so, a complaint was registered against the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 354-A, 354-D, 323, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code at the IV Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu, on a complaint given by P. Sai Sudha, alleging that they both loved each other and later the Petitioner refused to marry her. The Police, after investigation, filed a Charge Sheet before the jurisdictional Court, and the same was taken cognizance of vide PRC No. 13 of 2024. 3. Parallelly, the Respondent No.3 initiated the Disciplinary Proceedings vide C.No.03/C2/PR/RO/2024, dated 14.02.2025 on the same allegations mentioned in the criminal case and suspended the Petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the criminal case and the disciplinary case are with respect to the same incident and it will cause prejudice to the Petitioner. He placed reliance on 3 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the enquiry simultaneously and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others2. 6. Reasoning: The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.18/2024 on the file of IV Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexures and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are almost similar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another3, balancing the interest of department for expeditious conclusion of departmental enquiry as well as the prejudice of departmental enquiry on the criminal case affecting the delinquent, 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. Paragraphs 27 to 29 thereof are extracted below: 27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of Respondent 1 of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 4 arrangement straightaway. Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending against Respondent 1 to be decided expeditiously but not later than one year from the date of this order. The trial court shall take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight, when necessary. 28 . We also direct that Respondent 1 shall extend full cooperation to the trial court for an early disposal of the trial, which includes cooperation by the advocate appointed by her. 29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1 shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to Respondent 1 of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum of Charge in C.No.03/C2/PR/RO/2024, dated 14.02.2025 shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today. (ii) The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise Court), Ananthapuramu, shall complete the trail in PRC No.13/2024, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a 5 period of one year considering the fact that the departmental proceedings are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. (iii) The Petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court and shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. (iv) If the trial is not concluded within the period of one year, the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with. (v) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 18.06.2026 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15695/2026 Dt. 18.06.2026 eha