Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jakkam Srinivasulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 October, 2024
APHC010412762024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 21110/2024
Between:
Jakkam Srinivasulu ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
Rule Nisi.
Call for records.
Learned Government Pleader for Services takes notice on behalf of
respondents 1 to 3 and seeks time to get instructions.
Post the matter after four (04) weeks.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
I.A.No.1 of 2024:-
Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
A charge memo vide Rc.No.1871/2024/T5/T2, dated 27.08.2024
(Ex.P1) was issued against the petitioner with an allegation that the petitioner
was involved in attempt to commit theft of unearth treasure trove near Old
Chennakesava Swamy Temple situated at Eastern side Forest area near
Repalle Village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District on 14.03.2024 and a
case in Cr.No.51 of 2024 of Porumamilla Police Station, was registered. A
charge sheet was filed in Cr.No.51 of 2024 on the file of the Learned
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel and the same was numbered as
C.C.No.696 of 2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge framed
in the charge memo and the allegation made in C.C.No.696 of 2024 is one
and the same & the witnesses to be examined are also similar. 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.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services seeks time to file
counter affidavit.
It is pertinent to extract the observation made in the judgment of
Captain M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1, hereunder:
"The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are :
(i) ......
(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
1999 (3) SCC 679
which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be
desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the
criminal case."
In view of the observation made in the aforementioned judgment and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court of the opinion that if the
disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, and if the petitioner divulges
his defence, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner.
Accordingly, there shall be a stay of departmental proceedings framed
against the petitioner vide charge memo vide Rc.No.1871/2024/T5/T2, dated
27.08.2024 (Ex.P1).
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
TVN
