APHC010405902026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21968/2026 Between: 1. PATTA RAJASEKHAR, S/O. SATYANARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/AS HEAD CONSTABLE(HC-2856), GAJUWAKA L AND O POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY VISAKHAPATNAM, AP 2. STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. ...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 toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1strespondent in proceeding with department inquiry pursuant to the charge Memo in C.NO.27/PR/2023 dt16-07-2026 while the criminal case in CC.No.27/2025 on the file Hon'ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam for the same set of allegations is pending as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.23315 of 2020 on 01-04-2021 and confirmed in 2 WA.No.526/2022 dt 06-09-2022 and the SLP also dismissed and further direct the respondents not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo C.NO.27/PR/2023 dt16-07-2026 of the 1st respondent till the disposal of the Criminal case CC.No.27/2025 on the file Hon'ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam and pass 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 keep the Charge Memo in C.NO.27/PR/2023 dt; 16-07-2026 of the 1st respondent in abeyance till disposal of the criminal cases in CC.No.27/2025 on the file Hon'ble III Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for ACB cases, III Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.21968 of 2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent–Authorities in proceeding with departmental enquiry initiated vide C.No.27/PR/2023, dated 16.07.2026, during the pendency of criminal case in CC No.27 of 2025 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under: The Petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in Police department on 01.09.1999 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable on 06.02.2015. While so, a complaint, dated 20.12.2023 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 alleging demanding of bribe of Rs.5,000/- for doing official favour. Later Government issued a charge memo vide C.No.27/PR/2023, dated 16.07.2026 and Petitioner submitted his statement of defense to it. 3. Parallelly, Police Department has proceeded with the investigation and filed a charge sheet which was numbered as 4 C.C.No.27 of 2025 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam. 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 him. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1. 4. 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. Heard the counsels. 6. Reasoning: The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.13/RCT- VSP/2023, dated 20.12.2023. 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 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491 5 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. 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 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 C.No.27/PR/2023, dated 16.07.2026 shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today. (ii) The learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam shall complete the trial in C.C.No.27 of 2025, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a 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. 7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.08.2026 chs 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 102 WRIT PETITION No.21968 of 2026 Dated: 05.08.2026 chs