APHC010431982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 23436/2026 Between: 1. KONDAPALLI VENU GOPALA RAO, S/O. SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. VRO R/O. MODEL COLONY, CHINTALAPUDI VILLAGE, CHINTALAPUDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENRAVARAM 533124 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORLA, PIP, RMC UNIT- 1, KOVVURU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...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 order or direction more 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings agaisnt the petitioner vide charge proceedings bearing Admn-1/e-486175/2 024 dated 06-09-2024 pending CC No. 2 of 2022 on the file of Special Judge for Trail of SPE AND ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram as illegal arbitrary contrary to provisions of AP Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1991 being violative of Petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently setaside/quash the impugned departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide proceedings bearing Admn-1/e- 486175/2024 dated 06-09-2024 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 suspend the impugned disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent authorities pursuant to the proceedings bearing admn-1/e-486175/2024 dated 06-09-2024 against the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M P V N V SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.23436 of 2026 O R D E R: 1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondent–Authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide Charge Memorandum bearing No.Admn-1/e-486175/2024, dated 06.09.2024 pending C.C.No.02 of 2022 on the file of Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases at Rajamahendravaram, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as under:- The Petitioner is working as Village Revenue Officer (V.R.O) in the Revenue Department. While so, ACB officials conducted a trap against the Petitioner on 21.12.2018 basing on the complaint made by one Pragada Venkateswara Rao. Thereafter, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Eluru filed Charge Sheet, and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.02 of 2022 on the file of Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram. 4 3. The allegation against the Petitioner was that the Petitioner, while working as Village Revenue Officer, demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs.13,000/- from the complainant to do a official favour. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that parallelly, the Respondent-Authorities initiated Departmental Proceedings based on the crime registered against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted 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. 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 the involvement of the Petitioner 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 5 in the said criminal case. 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 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. 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 6 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 Charge Memorandum bearing No.Admin-1/e-486175/2024, dated 06.09.2024, shall remain stayed for a period of one year only from today. (ii) The learned Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram, shall complete the trial in C.C.No.02 of 2022, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year considering the fact that the departmental proceedings are stayed. (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. 7 (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: 17.08.2026 chs 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 166 WRIT PETITION NO:23436/2026 Dt. 17.08.2026 chs