Telangana High Court

Ch. Venugopal vs The State Of Telangana on 31 October, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

                                  1
                                                      W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

                      W.P. No.24691 of 2022



ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the

impugned charge memo vide memo vide C.No. 6/ACB-A4/PR/2021

dated 30-08-2021 along with Articles of Charges framed against the

petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of

natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 not

to conduct the disciplinary proceedings pending enquiry in Criminal

Case in FIR No. 03/ACB-KNR/2022; dated 22-03-2022 on the file of

the Honb'e Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar and to

pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are

that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Inspector of Police

in the year 1996, after due selection process. He worked at various

places in Khammam District as Sub Inspector of Police till his

promotion as Inspector of Police in the year 2010.

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

3. The petitioner worked as Inspector of Police at Khanapur, of

erstwhile Adilabad District from 2011 to 2013 and was further

posted as Inspector, ACB, Adilabad and worked as such from 2014

to 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Karimnagar

and worked as Inspector, ACB till 2021 and was promoted as

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB on 26-04-2021 and worked

as such till his suspension on 28-08-2021. Vide the memo dated

28-08-2021 he was served with a charge memo along with the

Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner under Rule 20 of

Telangana Civil Services (CC &A) Rules, 1991.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his explanation

towards the charges framed against him on 30-09-2021 by duly

denying the charges alleged against him and requested for dropping

of further action.

5. The respondent No.2 further contemplated an enquiry under

rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (CC &A) Rules, 1991 and

appointed the respondent No.3 as the Enquiry Officer to enquire

into the charges framed against the petitioner by order dated

08-12-2021.

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

6. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 has commenced the

enquiry by appointing the respondent No.4 as the Presenting Officer

by order dated 08-02-2022 and fixed the date for preliminary

hearing on 11-02-2022.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner participated in the

Departmental Proceedings and during the enquiry proceedings, the

respondent No.4 has cited five (05) witnesses and fixed the schedule

by recording the evidence of the witnesses and participated in the

enquiry on 05-03-2022.

8. It is submitted that Sri. A. Tirupathi, Inspector of Police,

Karimnagar and Sri. S.P. Ravinder, Inspector of Police, Karimnagar,

were examined and on 05-03-2022 Sri K. Bhadraiah, DSP, ACB,

Karimnagar was examined and on 17-03-2022 Sri Madhusudhan,

DSP, ACB, Warangal was also examined.

9. It is submitted that in continuation of the disciplinary

proceedings, during the cross examination on 17-03-2022, the

petitioner had expressed his intention of examining

Smt. M. Umarani, ACB, Court Clerk, Karimnagar as defense

witness and accordingly, the respondent No.3 has issued a notice to

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

the defence witness Smt. M. Umarani requesting her to appear on

27-03-2022.

10. It is submitted that while the Departmental Enquiry was being

conducted, the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar has filed a criminal

complaint against the petitioner with identical charges as that of

the Charges against the petitioner in the Departmental Enquiry,

that the petitioner while working as Inspector of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar range, during the period from 30-01-2018 to 02-04-

2021 has committed grave misconduct in handing the important

case properties due to which certain trap amounts of Rs. 30,000/-

in Crime No. 07/ACB-KNR/2017, Rs. 1,50,000/- and one I-Phone

in Crime No. 09/ACB-KNR/2017 and Rs. 1,00,000/- in Crime No.

04/ACB-KNR/2017 were misplaced and that he did not make any

efforts to report the missing trap amounts to his superior officer

and thereby shown gross negligence towards his duties and

committed grave misconduct.

11. It is submitted that the allegation in the FIR No. 03/ACB-

KNR/2022 dated 22-03-2022 was for the alleged offence U/S 13

(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 201 of IPC against the

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

petitioner and the charges framed in the Departmental Enquiry are

also the same and continuation of the Departmental Enquiry

pending criminal investigation would gravely and deeply prejudice

the defense of the petitioner to be taken during the course of

Criminal Trial.

12. It is submitted that if the petitioner is made to appear in the

Departmental Proceedings and adduce the evidence, the same is

likely to be used against him in the criminal trial. The learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admitted that

there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously

but submitted that it may not be desirable or advisable or

appropriate to proceed with the Departmental Enquiry when a

criminal case is pending on identical charges with the same list of

witnesses and evidence. It is submitted that the stay of

Departmental Proceedings is a matter to be determined having

regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case. He placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1,

in support of his above contention. He also placed reliance upon

1999 (3) SCC 679

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India

Versus Neelam Nag2. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner is seeking stay of the Departmental Proceedings pending

disposal of the criminal case against him. The learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further relied upon the

judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of D. Ravi

Babu v. Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh and others3

in Writ Petition No. 23315 of 2020 dated 01-04-2021, for the

proposition that any Departmental Proceedings should be stayed till

the criminal case is completed.

13. The learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand,

relied on the averments made in the counter-affidavit and also

relied upon the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 194/2020 dated

30-09-2020 for the proposition that both the Disciplinary

Proceedings as well as the Criminal Case can go on together and

further that when the accused is working in the Police Department,

he should have moral and ethical standards and it cannot be

presumed that the petitioner in the Criminal Case would be

2016 (9) SCC 491

2021 SCC Online AP 855

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

prejudiced merely because he might tamper with the witnesses or

the documentary evidence in the Departmental Enquiry. Thus

according to the Learned Government Pleader, there is no

prohibition in continuing the Departmental Proceedings along with

the Criminal Trial and the Writ Petition should be dismissed

accordingly.

14. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this court finds that on the very same set of facts, both the

Departmental as well as Criminal Case have been initiated against

the petitioner, the Departmental Enquiry has been initiated first

and at the stage of examining the defence witness, the respondents

have initiated Criminal Proceedings by filing an FIR. It is settled

law that the Departmental Proceedings are for the misconduct of

the petitioner in carrying on his duties whereas the Criminal Case

is for the alleged offence committed by him. Therefore both these

proceedings are for two different set of acts and therefore can go on

simultaneously. However, if both are on the basis of the same

witnesses and evidence, the evidence in one inquiry is likely to

jeopardize the case of the petitioner in the other Case. It was in

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases

relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had

held that it would be advisable to stay the disciplinary proceedings

till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. For the sake of

ready reference, the relevant findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court are

reproduced hereunder:

a. Cap. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another

(cited supra):

"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.

(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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest".

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

b. State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Another4

"25.Be that as it may, the remedy of writ being an equitable jurisdiction and keeping in mind the larger public interests (atleast in cases of involvement of the employees of the Public Sector Banks in offence of breach of trust and embezzlement), the arrangement predicated in the case of Stanzen (supra) would meet the ends of justice. For, the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the respondent cannot brook any further delay which is already pending for more than 10 years". "26.We make it clear that we may not be understood to have expressed any final view on the scope of Clause 4 of the Settlement".

"27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of the respondent 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 the respondent 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".

"28. We also direct that the respondent shall extend full cooperation to the Trial Court for an early disposal of the trial, which includes cooperation by the Advocate appointed by her".

"29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to the respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiring of the period of one year from the date of this order".

"30. In the result, we partly allow this appeal to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs".

15. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed

reliance upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the

case of D. Ravi Babu v. Director General of Police, Andhra

Pradesh and Others (cited supra). In the said case, the Andhra

(2016) 9 SCC 491

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

Pradesh High Court has considered the judgment of the Apex Court

in the Case of Captain M.Paul Anthony Versus Coal Mines

Limited (cited supra) and has held that both Departmental

Proceedings and the Criminal Case are based on identical and same

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.

16. Even in the case of Jangam Tilak Raj in W.A. No.194 of 2020

of which the learned Government Pleader for Home has placed

reliance upon, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated

30.09.2020 has held as under:-

"Each case has to be tested on its merits so as to see whether serious prejudice is caused to the delinquent employee if the departmental proceeding is conducted simultaneously along with the criminal trial. There cannot be a clear cut formula laid down to say as to whether the charges in the departmental proceedings are self‐same as the charges in the criminal proceedings. In a given case, if the charges in the departmental proceedings are of such nature, which cannot be enquired into for the reason such charges are totally and substantially the same as that of charges framed in the criminal proceedinqs and when the result of the criminal trial will have a direct bearing on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, the Court may take a view that the departmental proceedings may be deferred".

17. Having regard to the above judgments on the issue, this Court

is inclined to grant stay of the Proceedings in the Departmental

W.P. No. 24691 of 2022

Enquiry till the conclusion of the Criminal Proceedings pertaining to

FIR No. 3/DCB-KNR/2022 dated 22-03-2022. The petitioner is also

directed to co-operate with the respondents for early completion of

the Criminal Case against the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to

co-operate with the Criminal Trial and the Criminal Trial is dragged

on for more than two years at the behest of the petitioner then the

stay now granted shall stand automatically vacated and the

respondents shall have the liberty to continue the Departmental

Proceedings and conclude the same in accordance with law.