Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Ismail vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25092 OF 2024
Between:
Shaik Ismail, S/o Ibrahim, aged 52 years, presently working as Inspector of
Police, Nandyal II Town PS, Nandyal, r/o H.No. 2-2-6A/ Stantan Puram,
Balaji Nagar, Near Magistic Function Hall, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool
Kurnool District
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 2nd respondent in
initiation of the departmental enquiry vide the impugend Charge Memo.No.
set of
C.NO.C2/OEPR-37-A/2018, Dated 09-05-2024 for the same
facts/allegations on which a Criminal Case in C.C.No.13 of 2024 is pending
adjudication before Honble Special Judge for SPE and ACB Case,
Kurnool, instead of awaiting for the decision of Criminal Court, as illegal
arbitrary and quite contrary to well established legal principles in the case
of CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY Versus. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED
AND ANOTHER reported in (1990) 3 SCC 679 apart from being violative of
the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner, under Article 14 to 21
of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned
Charge Memo dated 09- 05-2024 issued by the 2""^ respondent.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including enquiry in Charge
Memo No. C.No.2/OEPR-37-A/2018, Dated; 09-05-2024 issued by the 2nd
respondent till the completion of Criminal Case No. 13 of 2024 pending
before Spl. Judge for SPE& ACB Cases, Kurnool, by extending the similar
orders granted to (A2) orders passed in I.A.N.o.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.
14277 of 2024 against the same Charges, pending disposal of the above
writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA
KOTA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following: ORDER
4t
I f S.
APHC010487702024
V- r.y
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3331]
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25092/2024
Between:
1.SHAIK ISMAIL, S/0 IBRAHIM, AGED 52 YEARS, PRESENTLY
WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NANDYAL II TOWN PS,
NANDYAL, R/0 H.NO. 2-2-6A/ STANTAN PURAM, BALAJI NAGAR,
NEAR MAGISTIC FUNCTION HALL, KURNOOL, KURNOOL
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL
RANGE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 2nd respondent in initiation of
the departmental enquiry vide the impugned Charge
T\/lemo.No.C.No.C2/OEPR-37-A/2018, Dated 09-05-2024 for the same set of
facts/allegations on which a Criminal Case in C.C.No.13 of 2024 is pending
Page 2 of 8 SRS^j
W.P.No.25092 of 2024
adjudication before Hon'ble Special Judge for SPE and ACB Case, Kurnool,
and
instead of awaiting for the decision of Criminal Court, as illegal arbitrary
the case of
quite contrary to well established legal principles in
CAPT.M.PAUL ANTHONY Versus. BHARAT GOLD MINES LIMITED AND
ANOTHER reported in (1990) 3 SCC 679 apart from being violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner, under Article 14 to 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Charge Memo
dated 09- 05-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and to pass such
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including enquiry in
Charge Memo No. C.No.2/OEPR-37-A/2018, Dated; 09-05-2024 issued by
the 2nd respondent till the completion of Criminal Case No. 13 of 2024
pending before Spl.Judge for SPE& ACB Cases, Kurnool, by extending the
similar orders granted to (A2) orders passed in l.A.N.o. 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.
14277 of 2024 against the same Charges, pending disposal of the above writ
petition and to pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
:: ORDER :
:
The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2
vide Memo in
in initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner
C.NO.C2/OEPR-37-A/2018, dated 09.05.2024, pending criminal proceedings
vide C.C.No.13 of 2024, as illegal and arbitrary.
I
/ SRS,J
2. Heard Sri Ch.Satya Dev Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri
Ramalingesv\/ara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for
the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2
initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide Memo in
C.NO.C2/OEPR-37-A/2018, dated 09.05.2024 (Ex.P1) on the ground that a
case in Cr.No.05/RCT-KUR/2018 for the offense punishable under Section 7
and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 34 of
IPC was registered against the petitioner. On similar allegations, a charge
sheet was filed on the file of the Learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE &
ACB Cases, Kurnool, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.13 of 2024. He
also would submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental
inquiry and the petitioner divulged defense, it would cause prejudice to the
petitioner and place reliance upon the judgment of Captain M.PauI Anthony
v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited\ wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed
as follows:
"The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are ;
.
' 1999 (3) see 679
SRSfJ
(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
can be
stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case,
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."
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that
i'here is no bar to proceed with the inquiry simultaneously and placed reliance
r
SRS.J
upon the judgment of Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v.
Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others^, 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 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."
5. As seen from the material available on record, the departmental
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in
C.C.No.13 of 2024. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure - III and the
list of witnesses in the charge sheet in C.C.No.13 of 2024 are mostly similar.
Jn the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue
'(2019)6 see 155
SRS;J X
and if the petitioner divulges his defense and it will cause prejudice to the
petitioner.
6. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr^ 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.
7. Given the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to
stay the departmental proceedings, for one year.
8. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the
petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned Special Judge for
Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool 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. The petitioner also shall co-operate for expeditious 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.
'"(^016)9 500 491
/ SRS,J
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.
9. 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.
SD/- K. TATA RAO
//TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR
\
To,
^^SECTION OFFICER
1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh,
A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool,
Kurnool District
3. One CC to Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, Advocate [OPUC
4. Two CCs to GP for Services-1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT
5. Three CD Copies.
ssb
HIGH COURT
, DATED:08/11/2024
ORDER
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF
ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS
