Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kumari Shaik Shameem vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 November, 2024
APHC010521052024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26777/2024
Between:
1. KUMARI SHAIK SHAMEEM, SHAMEEM, D/O. SHAIKSHASHA AGE
35 YEARS,OCC MAHILA POLICE (WMSK), SACHIVALAYAM, NO-12,
1 TOWN POLICE STATION KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGDS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 1 TOWN POLICE STATION
KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
4. THE D S P, DISHAMAHILA POLICE STATION 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 or Order more in the nature of Mandamus, to declare
the action of the 2nd and 4th respondent, in proceeding with the departmental
SRS, J
wp_26777_2024
enquiry against the petitioner by issuing Charge Memo PR.No A6/2115/2023
dated 20.09.2023, for the same set facts of facts for which Criminal Case
C.C.No 1668 /2023, pending trial before the Court Of Hon'ble1st Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, is pending as illegal, arbitrary,
unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially direct the
respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the
petitioner arising out of the Charge Memo PR.No/A6//2023 dated 20.09.2023,
till the conclusion of trail for the same set facts of in Criminal case C C No
1668 /2023, pending trial before the Court Of 1ST Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class Court,Kurnool a s well as the AP Police Standing
Orders and pass
IA 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
STAY the departmental enquiry against the petitioner arising out of the PR.No.
A6/2115/2023 dated: 20.09.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent for the same
set of facts for which Criminal case CC No: 1668 /2023, pending trial before
the Court Of Honorable 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Kurnool is pending and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. I RAVINDRA BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following ORDER:
The petitioner, Mahila Police (WMSK), Sachivalayam, No.12, I Town
Police Station, Kurnool, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the
respondents 2 and 4 in proceeding with the departmental inquiry issued
Memorandum of charge vide PR.No.A6/2115/2023, dated 20.09.2023 pending
criminal case vide C.C.No.1668 of 2023 on the file of the 1st Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, as illegal and arbitrary.
SRS, J
wp_26777_2024
2. Heard Sri I.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case in Crime
No.34 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC r/w 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against
the petitioner and others. Later, a charge sheet was filed on the file of the 1st
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool and the same was
numbered C.C.No.1668 of 2023. The 2nd respondent issued a charge memo
vide PR.No.A6/2115/2023, dated 20.09.2023. Articles of charges would
disclose that the petitioner along with family members harassed her sister-in-
law and thereby violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also
violated Order No.112 (D)(1) & (7) of AP Police Manual (Volume-1).
4. Learned counsel would submit that the witnesses in Annexure II and the
list of witnesses in the charge sheet are similar. Learned counsel would
submit that if the petitioner discloses the defence by cross-examining the
witness in the disciplinary proceeding it will cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Learned counsel relied upon the 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.
1999 (3) SCC 679
SRS, J
wp_26777_2024
(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
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.
6. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the criminal case
and departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the
SRS, J
wp_26777_2024
ground that the petitioner along with her family harassed her sister-in-law.
Based upon the said allegations, a case in Crime No.34 of 2023 was
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by of Disha Police Station, Kurnool.
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the list of
witnesses mentioned in Annexure-II and the witnesses in the criminal case
were identical. If the petitioner discloses the defence and cross-examine the
witnesses in the departmental inquiry, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner.
7. In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr2, 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 1st Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool shall complete the trial in C.C.No.1668 of
2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the
departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner are stayed, pending
disposal of the criminal case. It is needless to mention, 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.
(2016) 9 SCC 491
SRS, J
wp_26777_2024
If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial of the criminal case, the
disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul
Anthony's case.
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
Date: 20.11.2024
KA
SRS, J
wp_26777_2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26777/2024
Date: 20.11.2024
KA
