APHC010352432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18871/2026 Between: 1. VEEREPALLI PAVAN KUMAR, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC SANITORY INSPECTOR GR - II, O/O. GUDLAVALLERU GRAM PANCHAYAT, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521356. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM -521002. ...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action respondent in issuing the charge Memo vide rd of the 3 Eoffice.No.997486/2025 Pts7, dt.03.06.2026 and conducting the 2 disciplinary proceedings on the same charges which were pending before in the Court of the Honble Special Judge for SPE ACB Cases- cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-VJA/2024 without considering my representation dt.10.06.2026 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the orders passed by this Honble Court in W.P.No.23315 of 2020 and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed the departmental proceedin 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 leased to stay of all further proceedings against charge Memo issued by the O'"* respondent vide Eoffice.No.997486/2025 Pts7, dt.03.06.2026 to conducting the disciplinary proceedings on the same charges are pending in Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-VJA/2024 before in the Court of the Honble Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.18871 of 2026 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent-Authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide Eoffice.No.997486/2026Pts.7, dated 03.06.2026, pending Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-VJA/2024 on the file of the SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under:- The petitioner was initially appointed as MPHA on 23.10.1999 and was promoted as Sanitary Inspector in the year-2005. At present the Petitioner is working as Sanitary Inspector in Gudlavalleru Gram Panchayat of Gudlavalleru Mandal. It is submitted that, during the year-2024, while he was working as Sanitary Inspector in Avanigadda Gram Panchayat, he was placed under suspension by the Respondent No.3 vide proceedings in Roc.No.74/2024Pts.3, dated 07.03.2024 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- from one Akula Sai Krishna on 20.02.2024 to issue license to the said person for running a mobile tiffin cart in Avanigadda. 4 3. Parallelly, Police Department has proceeded with the investigation and filed a charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.02 of 2026 on the file of the SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Learned counsel for the petitioner further 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 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1. 4. The 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. 5. Reasoning:- The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB- VJA/2024. 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 1 1999(3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 5 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 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.” 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:- i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Eoffice.No.997486/2026Pts.7, dated 03.06. 2026 shall remain stayed for a period of one (01) year from today. 6 (ii) The learned Sessions Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, shall complete the trial in C.C.No.02 of 2026 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one (01) 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. 7. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 15.07.2026 chs Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ✔ Reportable Non-reportable ✔ 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 97 WRIT PETITION No.18871 of 2026 Dated: 15.07.2026 chs