Telangana High Court
Akarapu Srinivasulu vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.7762 of 2022
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The petitioner before this Court, who was serving as a Field
Assistant, has filed this writ petition stating that a crime has been
registered against him on 23.11.2019 for offence under Section
7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for
short "the Act") and on the basis of same incident and facts, a
charge sheet has been issued for initiating departmental enquiry
on 22.01.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that an enquiry
officer has been appointed in the departmental proceedings and in
the criminal case again, a charge sheet has been filed on
22.06.2021. Learned counsel has argued before this Court that
the witnesses in the departmental enquiry and the witnesses in the
criminal case are common and in case the departmental enquiry is
permitted to continue, they will have to disclose the defence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon
the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag1 as well as the judgment
delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26617 of
2021 dated 09.12.2021.
In the present case, undisputedly, the departmental enquiry
and the criminal case are based upon the same incident which
took place on 23.11.2019. The petitioner was caught red-handed
accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/- from one Sri S.Shiva Kumar,
1
(2014) 3 SCC 636
2
Advocate. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered for offence
under Section 7(b) of the Act. Charge sheets have been filed both
in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case.
Paragraph 27 of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) reads as under:-
"27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of the
Respondent 1 of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until
the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited
in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High
Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement
straightway. Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be
sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending against
Respondent 1 to be decided expeditiously but not later than one
year from the date of this order. The trial court shall take effective
steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are
examined on day-to-day basis. In case any adjournment becomes
inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight, when
necessary."
This Court has also gone through the judgment delivered by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26617 of 2021.
In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the trial Court is
directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from today
and the trial Court shall fix all the dates of hearing after every 15
days. The trial Court shall also be free to proceed with the day-to-
day trial, in case witnesses are available.
So far as departmental enquiry is concerned, the witnesses
are common and the petitioner will have to disclose his defence in
the departmental enquiry and therefore the departmental enquiry
shall remain in abeyance for a period of one year from the date of
this order. In case the trial is not concluded within one year, in
spite of the aforesaid order, the order staying the departmental
enquiry shall come to an end automatically as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra).
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands partly allowed. A
copy of this order be forwarded by the Registrar General of this
Court to the trial Court, where the criminal case is pending i.e.,
C.C.No.44 of 2021, for strict compliance of this order in respect of
conclusion of the trial. The trial Court shall not grant any
unnecessary adjournment in the matter and in case, there is any
need to grant any adjournment, the trial Court shall record in
writing the reasons for granting such adjournment.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
17.02.2022
Note: Issue C.C today.
JSU
