Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kovela Vijay Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.16579 OF 2024
Between:
Kovela Vijay Kumar, S/o Thaviti Naidu, 33
years, Police Constable 2863, Gunadala P.S.
Vijayawada City.
... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and two
others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Vijay Kumar
Counsel for respondents : GP for Services - I
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of
respondent authorities in proceeding with the disciplinary
proceedings, parallel against the petitioner vide C.No.37/PR/2021,
dated 26.09.2023, pending criminal proceedings vide C.C.No.493 of
2021 in Cr.No.123 of 2021, as illegal and arbitrary.
SRS, J
2. Heard Sri K.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services
- I appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner while
working as Constable in Gunadala Police Station, Vijayawada City, a
case in Crime No.123 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner.
Charge sheet was filed by the prosecution agency on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, Srikakulam District and the
same was numbered as C.C.No.493 of 2021. Based on the
complaint made by father of the petitioner, police registered a case
in Cr.No.122 of 2021 against the complainant in Cr.No.123 of 2021
and the same was numbered as C.C.No.490 of 2021.
Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner vide C.No.37/P/2021, dated 22.08.2022 and Articles of
Charges were framed. At that juncture, the petitioner filed the
present writ petition seeking staying departmental proceedings on
account of the pendency of the criminal case vide C.C.No.493 of
2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based
SRS, J
upon the crime registered in Cr.No.123 of 2021. He also would
submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry
and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the
petitioner and placed reliance upon the judgment of Captain M.Paul
Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1, wherein, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as follows:
"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.
1999 (3) SCC 679
SRS, J
(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."
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would
submit that there is no bar to proceed with the inquiry simultaneously
and placed reliance upon the judgment of Secretary, Lucy
Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and
Others2, wherein at para No.17, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
as follows:
"17. It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and
proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The
purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the
approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a
departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we
are concerned in the present matter can never be said to be
(2019) 6 SCC 155
SRS, J
amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal
proceedings were pending. The allegations made against
Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an
immediate action on the departmental front was required to
be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be
completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was
pending or not would not be having any bearing on the
pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the
nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher
was completely wrong and unsustainable."
6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
contentions.
7. Articles of charges as per Annexure - I reads as follows:
"Exhibited grave misconduct and misbehaviour by
bearing one Sri Kanakala Srinu, S/o Ramarao, 45 years,
with stick and caused injuries to him, he also beat another
Sri Kanakala Eswara Rao, B/o Kanakala Srinu with hands
over a land dispute at Thalada Village of Santhakaviti
Mandal and thereby involved as accused in Cr.No.123/2023,
U/s 324, 323, r/w 34 of IPC of Santhakaviti PS of Srikakulam
District."
8. As seen from the material available on record, the
departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based
on his involvement in Cr.No.123 of 2021. The list of witnesses
SRS, J
mentioned in Annexure - II & III and the list of witnesses in the
charge sheet in Cr.No.123 of 2021 are mostly similar. In the
circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to
continue, and if the petitioner divulges his defence and it will cause
prejudice to the petitioner.
9. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr 3,
the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.
10. Given the facts and circumstances, as discussed supra, this
Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for
one year.
11. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against
the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Rajam, Srikakulam District shall complete
the criminal trial in the above C.C. as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings
initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is
(2016) 9 SCC 491
SRS, J
needless to mention here the petitioner shall cooperate during the
trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments.
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.
12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at
the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date : 01.08.2024
TVN
SRS, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.16579 OF 2024
Date : 01.08.2024
TVN
