R Srinivasa Rao vs Bharath Gold Mines Limited And
2024 Latest Caselaw 6941 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

R Srinivasa Rao vs Bharath Gold Mines Limited And on 9 August, 2024

APHC010341732024
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                                          [3331]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                     FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                        PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                         WRIT PETITION NO: 17463/2024

Between:

R Srinivasa Rao                                                             ...PETITIONER

                                            AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and another.                              ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. C SRINIVASA BABA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to proceed with the Charge Memo G.O.Rt.No.455 Water Resources (Vigilance-II) Department dated 17.10.2023 issued by the respondents as illegal, arbitrary apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders...".

SRS, J Wp_17463_2024

2. Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri

R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services

appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.455

Water Resources (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 17.10.2023 was issued to

the petitioner framing a charge against him on the ground that while he was

working as Deputy Executive Engineer, demanded and accepted bribe of

Rs.1,50,000/-. In connection with the said complaint, ACB officials registered a

case in Crime No.01/RCT-ACB-GNT/2021 under Section 7(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Later, a charge sheet was

filed on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada vide

C.C.No.12 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the witnesses as

per Annexure-III in the charge memo and the list of witnesses in the charge

sheet are almost identical. He would submit that if the petitioner discloses the

defense by filing a written explanation to the charge memo, it will cause

prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the

SRS, J Wp_17463_2024

judgment in Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and

Another1 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.

(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.

1999 (3) SCC 679

SRS, J Wp_17463_2024

(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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on the other hand,

would submit that the trial in criminal cases will take considerable time. He

would submit that the Inquiry Officer has not been appointed so far and that

the writ petition is premature.

6. As seen from the material, based on the alleged incident of demanding

and accepting money, a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.455 dated 17.10.2023

(Ex.P.1) was issued to the petitioner. A criminal case was also registered on

the same ground vide C.C.No.12 of 2024 and the same is pending on the file

of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. As rightly pointed

out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the witnesses and the evidence

in both cases as per Annexure-III of the charge memo and the charge sheet

are identical. If the petitioner is allowed to disclose the defense by filing a

written explanation, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner.

SRS, J Wp_17463_2024

7. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr 2, 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.

8. Given the facts and circumstances, as discussed supra, this Court

deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year.

9. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the

petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The learned Special Judge for

SPA & ACB Cases, Vijayawada shall complete the criminal trial in the C.C.

No.12 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year,

since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of

the criminal case. It is 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.

(2016) 9 SCC 491

SRS, J Wp_17463_2024

10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the

admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Dated 09.08.2024 KA

SRS, J Wp_17463_2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 17463/2024 Dated 09.08.2024 KA