Durgam Mahender vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4057 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.30681 OF 2022


                                ORDER

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with

the consent of both the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Memorandum of

Charges vide C.No.13/PR/A/2020-21 dt.31.03.2021 as arbitrary, unjust

and violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner joined the police service as Sub-Inspector of Police in

Subedari Police Station of Warangal Commissionerate and worked there

from 29.08.2016 to 17.12.2019. Thereafter, he was transferred to CCS,

Mancherial of Ramagundam Commissionerate and was working as

such. It is submitted that on 24.09.2020, while the petitioner was

working as Sub-Inspector of Police, CCS, Mancherial of Ramagundam

Commissionerate, a complaint was registered by one Vinisha Mandala

and the same was registered as FIR No.409 of 2020 by P.S. Subedari, W.P.No.30681 of 2022

Warangal Commissionerate. It is submitted that on the basis of the FIR,

a charge sheet No.43/2021 dt.16.02.2021 was registered before the VI

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate and in view thereof, the

petitioner was issued charge memo on 31.03.2021 by the 3rd respondent

stating that the petitioner exhibited gross reprehensible misconduct for

exploiting one Mandala Vanisha and thereby violated Rule 3 of the

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is submitted

that the charge in the charge memo is the basis for the charges in Crime

No.409 of 2020 and therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

4. It is submitted that on 07.11.2020, the petitioner was suspended

from service and the same was revoked after considering his explanation

vide proceedings dt.22.01.2021 by the Inspector General of Police, CID,

Telangana State, Hyderabad and he resumed duties after receipt of the

order dt.22.01.2021. It is submitted that the continuation of disciplinary

proceedings and issuance of charge memo dt.31.03.2021 after

revocation of the suspension order are unjust and in violation of

principles of natural justice.

5. On merits, it is also submitted that the complainant has filed the

complaint with a mala fide intention and had on earlier occasion also W.P.No.30681 of 2022

filed a complaint against one Kothapally Mahesh, S/o Muthaiah, which

was registered as FIR No.100 of 2015 before P.S. Nellikudur

dt.02.10.2015 with similar allegations and later on, it had ended in a

compromise between the de facto complainant and the accused therein.

It is stated that the complainant Vinisha has filed the complaint only to

blackmail the petitioner into paying money.

6. The suspension order dt.07.11.2020 is being challenged in this

Writ Petition. The only ground on which the petitioner is challenging the

same is that the charge memo is issued only pursuant to the FIR

registered on the complaint registered against him, i.e., FIR No.409 of

2020, and on the same set of facts, parallel proceedings, such as criminal

proceedings as well as departmental proceedings, cannot be carried on

simultaneously. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms. B.Rajeswari, has placed reliance upon the following

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(1) Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and

another1.

(1999) 3 SCC 679 W.P.No.30681 of 2022

(2) G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and others2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the

order of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in the case

of Harish Chandra Hinunia Vs. Food Corporation of India through

General Manager and others3.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, has

also placed reliance on the very same judgments (1 to 3 supra) and

contended that there is no ban on initiating disciplinary proceedings

when a criminal case has been registered against the employee. He has

submitted that the criminal case is with regard to the alleged offence

committed by the petitioner, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are

initiated for misconduct under the relevant Services Rules. He therefore

submitted the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on

record, this Court finds that the allegations against the petitioner are not

with regard to discharge of his official duties, but it is on account of the

complaint filed by a person making certain allegations against the

(2006) 5 SCC 446

W.P.No.453 of 2022 dated 07.02.2022 W.P.No.30681 of 2022

petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondents have

alleged that the petitioner has tarnished the image of the respondents and

thereby it has amounted to misconduct under Andhra Pradesh Civil

Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As rightly pointed out by the learned

Government Pleader for Home, the criminal case as well as the

disciplinary proceedings can be carried on simultaneously on the same

set of facts, but for different charges. As rightly pointed out, the criminal

case is with regard to the allegations of offence committed by the

petitioner, whereas the disciplinary proceedings are for misconduct of

the petitioner. Both the enquiries are originated from different pedestals

leading to different consequences.

9. The judgments on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance are distinguishable on facts. In all the cases, both the

criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings were conducted

simultaneously and on an honourable acquittal in a criminal case, the

Hon'ble Courts have held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be

sustained.

10. In view of the above, this Court does not see any reason to stay or

set aside the charge memo dt.31.03.2021.

W.P.No.30681 of 2022

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an alternative

submission that if the disciplinary proceedings were to go on, the

defence of the petitioner in the criminal case would be known to the

complainant and his defence in the criminal case would get jeopardised

and therefore, she sought stay of disciplinary proceedings pending a

decision in the criminal case.

12. The learned Government Pleader for Home, however, pointed out

that the prayer in the Writ Petition is limited only to setting aside of the

charge memo and there is no prayer for stay of disciplinary proceedings

while the criminal proceedings are in process and therefore, this

alternate prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered in this Writ

Petition.

13. Having gone through the record, it is found that there is no such

prayer made by the petitioner. However, it is open to the petitioner to

make a representation with regard to the same to the authorities

concerned who shall consider the same in accordance with law.

14. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

W.P.No.30681 of 2022

15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

also stand dismissed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 04.08.2022 Svv