THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.30681 OF 2022
ORDER
This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Memorandum of Charges vide C.No.13/PR/A/2020-21 dt.31.03.2021 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the police service as Sub-Inspector of Police in Subedari Police Station of Warangal Commissionerate and worked there from 29.08.2016 to 17.12.2019. Thereafter, he was transferred to CCS, Mancherial of Ramagundam Commissionerate and was working as such. It is submitted that on 24.09.2020, while the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS, Mancherial of Ramagundam Commissionerate, a complaint was registered by one Vinisha Mandala and the same was registered as FIR No.409 of 2020 by P.S. Subedari, W.P.No.30681 of 2022 2 Warangal Commissionerate. It is submitted that on the basis of the FIR, a charge sheet No.43/2021 dt.16.02.2021 was registered before the VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate and in view thereof, the petitioner was issued charge memo on 31.03.2021 by the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner exhibited gross reprehensible misconduct for exploiting one Mandala Vanisha and thereby violated Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is submitted that the charge in the charge memo is the basis for the charges in Crime No.409 of 2020 and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
4. It is submitted that on 07.11.2020, the petitioner was suspended from service and the same was revoked after considering his explanation vide proceedings dt.22.01.2021 by the Inspector General of Police, CID, Telangana State, Hyderabad and he resumed duties after receipt of the order dt.22.01.2021. It is submitted that the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo dt.31.03.2021 after revocation of the suspension order are unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. On merits, it is also submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint with a mala fide intention and had on earlier occasion also W.P.No.30681 of 2022 3 filed a complaint against one Kothapally Mahesh, S/o Muthaiah, which was registered as FIR No.100 of 2015 before P.S. Nellikudur dt.02.10.2015 with similar allegations and later on, it had ended in a compromise between the de facto complainant and the accused therein. It is stated that the complainant Vinisha has filed the complaint only to blackmail the petitioner into paying money.
6. The suspension order dt.07.11.2020 is being challenged in this Writ Petition. The only ground on which the petitioner is challenging the same is that the charge memo is issued only pursuant to the FIR registered on the complaint registered against him, i.e., FIR No.409 of 2020, and on the same set of facts, parallel proceedings, such as criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings, cannot be carried on simultaneously. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.Rajeswari, has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(1) Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and another1.
1 (1999) 3 SCC 679 W.P.No.30681 of 2022 4 (2) G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others2.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in the case of Harish Chandra Hinunia Vs. Food Corporation of India through General Manager and others3.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, has also placed reliance on the very same judgments (1 to 3 supra) and contended that there is no ban on initiating disciplinary proceedings when a criminal case has been registered against the employee. He has submitted that the criminal case is with regard to the alleged offence committed by the petitioner, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are initiated for misconduct under the relevant Services Rules. He therefore submitted the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are not with regard to discharge of his official duties, but it is on account of the complaint filed by a person making certain allegations against the 2 (2006) 5 SCC 446 3 W.P.No.453 of 2022 dated 07.02.2022 W.P.No.30681 of 2022 5 petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondents have alleged that the petitioner has tarnished the image of the respondents and thereby it has amounted to misconduct under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Home, the criminal case as well as the disciplinary proceedings can be carried on simultaneously on the same set of facts, but for different charges. As rightly pointed out, the criminal case is with regard to the allegations of offence committed by the petitioner, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are for misconduct of the petitioner. Both the enquiries are originated from different pedestals leading to different consequences.
9. The judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance are distinguishable on facts. In all the cases, both the criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings were conducted simultaneously and on an honourable acquittal in a criminal case, the Hon'ble Courts have held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not see any reason to stay or set aside the charge memo dt.31.03.2021.
W.P.No.30681 of 2022 6
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an alternative submission that if the disciplinary proceedings were to go on, the defence of the petitioner in the criminal case would be known to the complainant and his defence in the criminal case would get jeopardised and therefore, she sought stay of disciplinary proceedings pending a decision in the criminal case.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Home, however, pointed out that the prayer in the Writ Petition is limited only to setting aside of the charge memo and there is no prayer for stay of disciplinary proceedings while the criminal proceedings are in process and therefore, this alternate prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered in this Writ Petition.
13. Having gone through the record, it is found that there is no such prayer made by the petitioner. However, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation with regard to the same to the authorities concerned who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
14. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
W.P.No.30681 of 2022 7
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 04.08.2022 Svv