Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 573 (AP)

M. Sagar Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-03

CHALLA GUNARANJAN

body2025
ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. The present Writ petition is filed for following relief: “….to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating the departmental enquiry and proceeding with the enquiry proceedings through the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the departmental proceedings vide Charge Memo NO.42/P1/2023 dated 30/11/2023 and proceeding with the enquiry of the departmental proceedings in spite of pendency of the criminal case in F.I.R No.22/2024 on the file of Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, on the same set of charges and not taking any action on the Petitioner?s representation dated 24/03/2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner…” 2. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 3. The petitioner while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, was issued Charge Memo.No.42/P1/2023, dated 30.11.2023, specifying the articles of charges, which was initially related to forgery of the signatures of higher officials and manipulation of records. Crime No. 22 of 2024 also came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 465 , 471 and 420 of IPC before the Rajahmundry III Town Police Station for the same allegations. The police enquiry was going on and charge-sheet is yet to be filed. However, in sofar the departmental enquiry is concerned, the enquiry officer came to be appointed on 18.03.2024. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and requested to refer an enquiry, in view of the pendency of criminal investigation, which also relates to the same allegations. However, the new enquiry officer, who assumes the charge, is proceeding to commence the enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incidents and allegations for initiating both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings being one and the same. When the criminal proceedings are going on, simultaneous initiation of departmental proceedings would cause prejudice to the petitioner, as he will to disclose the defence before the criminal trial has taken up. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incidents and allegations for initiating both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings being one and the same. When the criminal proceedings are going on, simultaneous initiation of departmental proceedings would cause prejudice to the petitioner, as he will to disclose the defence before the criminal trial has taken up. The list of witnesses indicated in the charge memo and those would be examined during the course of the criminal trial, are more or less simultaneously same. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27373 of 2021 , [ 2023 2 ALT 459 ] , wherein this Court, after considering the various judgments on aforesaid point, in particular, case of Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited held that both the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded simultaneously. Even this Court after considering the various judgment of Apex court took similar view in W.P.No.6979 of 2025, the para Nos 4 & 5 are extracted thereunder: “4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.467 of2024 to contend that as petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings based on criminal case which was instituted against him, pending investigation and filing charge sheet therein, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with. The Division Bench while dealing with the aforesaid issue has summarized law on this aspect in Paras10 to 12, which read as under: “10) The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another , [(1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679] and G.M.Tankv. State of Gujarat and others , [(2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446] has subsequently been appreciated by a larger bench consisting of three judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force and Another , [(2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 979] , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after appreciating the factual and legal components of the conundrum has categorically upheld the correctness of law as laid down in M. Paul Anthony case (1 Supra) and the Hon'ble Apex court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad case (3 supra)has been pleased to observe and hold in Para 20 as under: 20. The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case (supra) on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance was a case where a question arose for consideration as to whether the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be continued simultaneously and this Court answered in para 22 as under: “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 chargesheet. (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 honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 11) In the above background, we have appreciated the ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the Respondents. Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are:- 6. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 reads as under: “3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate from the record are:- 6. Three different FIRs stood registered against him, under which he was arrested but later released on bail. In his written show cause to this Memorandum, the Delinquent employee contended that the disciplinary proceedings should be either dropped or closed since criminal cases were pending him, arising from the same set of transactions. 7. The appellant-bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer who, in his report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The Delinquent Employee, again denying the charges, filed a response to that but was eventually dismissed from the services at the bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28th March 2003. The departmental appeal filed by him, after due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed on 16th August 2004. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal, the delinquent employee filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.12 of 2005 before the Gauhati High Court. The question before the said Court was: whether, in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 20023, the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee (respondent) herein ought to have been stayed or not.” The above paras would reveal that facts on hand and the facts involved in the ruling, as recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, are at a complete variance. In the instant case, the appellant has approached this Court at the stage of framing of articles of charges. On the contrary, the facts recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India and others v. P.Zadenga , [(2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 675] would reveal that the delinquent employee had participated in the enquiry and thereafter has proceeded to contest the correctness of the enquiry. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paras 31 to 35 as recorded in paragraph 6 hereinabove. 12) This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’scase (4 supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the said case. 12) This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’scase (4 supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the said case. A close perusal of the above ruling does not also disclose any observations which would derogate from law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony’s Case (1 supra) and as upheld by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad's case.” 5. Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is disposed of by staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru, in pursuance to the charge memo vide No.42/P1/2023, dated 30.11.2023, till filing of charge sheet by jurisdictional police in FIR No.22 of 2024 on the file of Rajahmundry III Town Police Station and examination and cross-examination of all the witness. In the event, charges and witnesses are different as noted by the larger bench in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s Case , it shall be open for the respondent – employer to proceed with the enquiry strictly in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.