ORDER : (Subba Reddy Satti, J.) : This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… to pass a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating departmental proceedings vide the proceedings in C.No.1/Major-PR/A6/2023, dated 01-09-2023 of Office of the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli District, along with consequential proceedings in even number dated 13-11-2023 appointing Inquiring Authority and presenting officer is arbitrary highhanded and illegal consequently direct the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance pending disposal of the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.1/2023 of K. Kotapadu PS, Anakapalli District, in the interest of justice and pass such other or further order or orders …” 2. The averments in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that while the petitioner was working as HC1580 in Kotapadu Police Station, Anakapalli District, a report was lodged on 03.01.2023, by one S. Paidiraju HC-1002, Writer in the said police station, to the Sub- Inspector of Police, K. Kotapadu Police Station, alleging that an unknown person entered into case property room by break opening the window of the police station from outside and committed theft of 7 bags of Ganja, weighing 200 Kgs. Based upon the report, a case in crime No.1 of 2023 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). On 05.01.2023, on receipt of reliable information about the accused, the Inspector of Police while proceeding towards A. Koduru, found two persons, who tried to escape. Police apprehended them and on being questioned they revealed their names as Setti Sandeep Kumar and Vijay Kumar Malibabu. Based on the confession, the petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2023. b) The petitioner was suspended from service vide D.O.No.15/2023 and C.No.01/Major – PR/A6/2023 dated 09.01.2023. Before contemplating disciplinary proceedings, the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Kothakota Circle, Anakapalli District. A charge memo dated 01.09.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was received on 23.10.2023. The 2nd Respondent did not deliver copies of the documents mentioned in the Memo and the statements of the witnesses. However, the petitioner submitted a written statement on 01.11.2023, denying the allegations. A charge memo dated 01.09.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was received on 23.10.2023. The 2nd Respondent did not deliver copies of the documents mentioned in the Memo and the statements of the witnesses. However, the petitioner submitted a written statement on 01.11.2023, denying the allegations. c) Initially, FIR was registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 380 of IPC, and subsequently Section 120(b) of IPC and Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) were added. After registration of crime No.1 of 2023, when the petitioner was produced before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram for remand, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to issue remand on the ground that the provisions of NDPS would not be attracted against him. Therefore, the Police altered the Form, showing Sections 120(b), 457 and 380 of IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter, a remand was issued. The petitioner was enlarged on bail and his suspension was revoked on 16.11.2023. Thereafter, on 29.11.2023, the petitioner was posted to Ananthagiri Police Station. By proceedings, dated 13.11.2023, respondent No.3 was appointed as Inquiry Authority. d) Pending the criminal case based on the same set of facts and evidence, departmental Inquiry, cannot be proceeded further. If the petitioner discloses his defense with documentary evidence in the departmental Inquiry, it will cause great hardship and irreparable loss. Hence, the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is not disputed regarding GSEs and cash rewards awarded to the petitioner, during service. Respondent No.2 pleaded about registration of crime, submission of a special report by Sub- Inspector of Police about petitioner’s involvement in the crime, facilitating A1 to enter into police station premises, and commission of theft of ganja from the police station, due to which petitioner was added as A2. Gorsa Kiran, S/o Raju, and Nadipalli Ganesh, S/o Santhosh, aged 15 years were added as Child in Conflict with Law 2 & 3, duly adding Sections of Law 120(b), 20(b)(ii)(c) read with 8(c) of NDPS Act, in addition to Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC. A charge sheet was filed before Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Gorsa Kiran, S/o Raju, and Nadipalli Ganesh, S/o Santhosh, aged 15 years were added as Child in Conflict with Law 2 & 3, duly adding Sections of Law 120(b), 20(b)(ii)(c) read with 8(c) of NDPS Act, in addition to Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of IPC. A charge sheet was filed before Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. During the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner maintained a close relationship with A1 and helped him to move in the premises of the police station, including the storeroom, where ganja was kept. b) As per circular Memo Rc.No.5542/C3/2021 dated 21.07.2021, where there is grave criminal misconduct on the part of a police officer, action should be taken as per Rule-20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’). Therefore, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a written statement of defense denying the Articles of Charge. Later, on 29.11.2023, after revoking the suspension, the petitioner was transferred to Alluri Seetharama Raju District, Paderu. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Narsipatnam Sub-Division, Anakapalli District, was appointed as Inquiry Authority for conducting the departmental Inquiry, as per Rule 20 of the Rules. The petitioner attended and informed that he wants to change the Inquiry Officer as Ananthagiri Police Station is far away from Narsipatnam. The Petitioner also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli District, with a request to hold oral inquiry after two months. The averment in the writ affidavit that there is no substantial or corroborative evidence against the petitioner to initiate departmental proceedings, is specifically denied. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sir S.V.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while elaborating the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit, contended that if the defense in the departmental Inquiry is revealed, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. He placed reliance upon decisions reported in A. Ravinder v. Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others : 2012(5) ALT 726 , M. Koteswara Rao v. Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, SDSC, SHAR, Sriharikota, Sullurpet Mandal, Nellore District and others : 2011 (5) ALT 777 and A. Peddanna v. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Guntakal : 2006 (4) ALT 631 . 6. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the counter affidavit. 7. Before proceeding further into the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to extract the charge framed against the petitioner as per the charge memo, dated 01.09.2023, which is as under: “… That the government servant alleged to have exhibited gross misconduct and dereliction towards his legitimate duties and allowed private person (Setti Sandeep as A1) into the Police Station, and gave a chance to the accused-I by breaking the window of the store room forcibly and committed theft of 07 plastic gunny bags with Ganja weighing about 200 Kgs which was seized in Ganja case in Cr.No.97/2022 of K. Kotapadu Police Station. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.01/2023 u/s 120(b), 457, 380 r/w 34 IPC (MO: window), 20(b) (ii) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act of K. Kotapadu PS was registered and the government servant Sri K. Shyam Kumar, HC 1580 was arrested on 05.01.2023 at 15.45 hours at K. Kotapadu PS as accused -02 and produced before the Hon’ble AJFCM Court, Chodavaram for judicial custody along with other accused. As a result of which the image of the police department was damaged in the public and thereby contravened Rule-03 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 8. In Annexure-III, the following names are shown as witnesses proposed to be examined in support of the Article of Charge framed against statement of Articles of Charge against the petitioner: 1. Sri Syed Eliyas Mohammad, Inspector of Police, Kothakota Circle 2. Sri Rajana Dhanunjaya, Sub Inspector of Police, K. Kotapadu Police Station 3. Sri Saripalli Pydiraju, HC-1002, K. Kotapadu PS 4. Sri Matsa vamsi Krishna, PC-1907 K. Kotapadu PS 5. Sri Pottangi Pratap, HC -927, V. Madugula PS 6. Penaganti Sanyasayya, PC-2268, Anakapalli Traffic PS 7. Sri Kolli Ramana, Station Sweeper, K. Kotapadu PS 8. Sri Bokam Rama Rao, HG-451, K. Kotapadu PS 9. Sri Ch. Tata Rao, Inspector of Police, K. Kotapadu PS Certain documents, to be examined, during the inquiry, were also mentioned in Annexure – IV. 9. The petitioner submitted his defense on 01.11.2023, by way of a written statement, wherein he specifically stated that he was not in Station on that day. Sri Ch. Tata Rao, Inspector of Police, K. Kotapadu PS Certain documents, to be examined, during the inquiry, were also mentioned in Annexure – IV. 9. The petitioner submitted his defense on 01.11.2023, by way of a written statement, wherein he specifically stated that he was not in Station on that day. It is appropriate to extract the defense taken by the petitioner, which is as under: “The facts in existence are that I have been deployed on 01.01.2023 at 18.00 hours to perform CM BB Duty at Arts College, Rajahmundry along with HC 1640, PCs 1955, 2114, 2268, 2246. Accordingly, I went to Rajahmundry on 02-01- 2023, discharged CM BB duty and returned to K. Kotapadu Police station on 03-01-2023 at 23.00 hours”. 10. In the defense, the petitioner specifically pleaded that he was not present at the Police Station on that day and hence, he is no way concerned with the alleged offence. He also pleaded that the confession made by the accused in the presence of the Police does not have legal sanctity under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the ingredients of Section 120(b) IPC do not apply to the petitioner as he is not a party to the conspiracy. He further pleaded that the provisions of NDPS Act are also not applicable to him and that the allegations are vague and not supported by any direct evidence. He further pleaded that if he is presumed to be responsible for the commission of the alleged offences, the concerned SHO should also be made responsible as per the tortuous liability. Eventually, the petitioner pleaded innocence. 11. Along with the counter affidavit, a copy of the charge sheet dated 08.09.2023, filed before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, was filed. However, no material is placed regarding C.C. Number. 12. It is an undisputed fact that because of the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the criminal case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The witnesses to be examined, in the disciplinary proceedings and criminal are almost one and the same. Of course, there is no bar to proceed with the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously. However, one should not be oblivious to the witnesses and the documentary evidence to be let in, in both proceedings. As discussed supra, the witnesses to be examined are almost the same. Of course, there is no bar to proceed with the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings simultaneously. However, one should not be oblivious to the witnesses and the documentary evidence to be let in, in both proceedings. As discussed supra, the witnesses to be examined are almost the same. If the petitioner divulges, his defense by cross-examining the witnesses, in the departmental proceedings, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner. 13. In M. Paul Antony vs. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd. : 1999 (3) SCC 679 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue as to when the departmental proceedings should be stayed or postponed, pending the criminal case, when both are on the same set of facts, laid down the following conclusions : “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. (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 honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 14. Thus, keeping in view the expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgment referred to supra, especially (ii) and (iii), to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed till the completion of the criminal trial. The petitioner shall cooperate with trial in criminal case. The learned presiding officer of the concerned Court is requested to complete the trial in criminal case, as expeditiously as possible, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul Anthony’s case. 16. With the above observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.