Telangana High Court
Sri. M. Nagesh vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 31 October, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 25330 of 2022
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ
of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing
order No.HCP/B-II/BB/0005/2019, dated 06.06.2022 pursuant to
the Articles of Charge vide Memorandum
P.R.No.21/2022/No.HCP/BII/B8/0005/2019, dated 24.03.2022
and proceedings with the departmental enquiry while Criminal case
is pending i.e., CC.17 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Special
Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and in
violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct
the respondents No.2 and 3 not to proceed with the departmental
enquiry pursuant to the articles of charges vide
P.R.No.21/2022/No.HCP/BII/B8/0005/2019, dated 24.03.2022 till
conclusion of Criminal Case in CC.No.17 of 2022, pending on the
file of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are
that the petitioner had joined the Police Department as a constable
on 14.12.2009 and thereafter, in course of transfer, he was posted
to P.S.Bollaram w.e.f. 11.08.2015. It is submitted that while
working as a constable, P.S.Bollaram, a complaint was given by one
W.P.No.25330 of 2022
Smt.K.N.Ambika, W/o.J.Narsingh Rao and a case has been
registered in Cr.No.19/RCO-CR-II/2019, under Section 7(a) of
Prevention of Corruption Act on 17.06.2019, which is subsequently
numbered as C.C.No.17 of 2022 on the file Principal Special Judge
for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. It is submitted vide
memorandum P.R.No.21/2022/No.HCP/BII/B8/0005/2019, dated
24.03.2022, that the respondents have initiated disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner and served the copy of the
articles of charge on the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner, immediately has made representations dated 17.05.2022
and 06.04.2022 respectively, to the 2nd respondent requesting him
to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in
abeyance till the conclusion of ACB case. It is submitted that since
both the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated on the same set of facts and the list of witnesses and
documents are also same, the petitioner will be facing difficulty and
it would cause prejudice to him if the petitioner were to disclose his
defense in the disciplinary proceedings before the conclusion of
criminal proceedings.
3. It is submitted that the respondents however, have not
considered the same and have appointed Mr.K.V.Muralidhr Prasad,
Additional DCP, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, as the Inquiry Officer vide
W.P.No.25330 of 2022
proceedings dated 06.06.2022 and also directed the witnesses to
appear before the Inquiry Officer vide memo dated 09.06.2022. He
further submits that the action of the respondents in not
considering the request of the petitioner is in violation of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M.Paul
Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Another1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further filed a copy of the
charge sheet and also FIR to demonstrate that the list of witnesses
and the documents relied upon by both the officers, in the criminal
case as well as disciplinary proceedings are one and the same.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand
relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and
submitted that the petitioner being a constable, has indulged in
demanding and accepting bribe and that the entire conversation
between the complainant and the petitioner were recorded in
electronic gadget and therefore, the petitioner had indulged in an
act which was unbecoming of a Police Officer and accordingly, the
disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated against the
petitioner. He places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.184 of 2020, dated 30.09.2020 for
the proposition that where both the disciplinary proceedings as well
(1999) 3 SCC 671
W.P.No.25330 of 2022
as the criminal proceedings are going on, particularly in the case of
Police Officer, it's not advisable to allow the proceedings to hang
over for a long time.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the criminal case was registered
against the petitioner in the year 2019 and the disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated in the year 2022. On going through
the material on record, both the FIR and the charge sheet and also
the articles of charges issued in the case of disciplinary proceedings,
it is noticed that in both, the list of witnesses and also the
documents relied upon by the prosecution officers are one and the
same. In such circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony (cited supra) would
definitely apply and the disciplinary proceedings would have to be
stayed till conclusion of the criminal case. The decision on which
the learned Government Pleader for Home, has relied upon is in the
case of a Police Officer who was alleged to have cheated a woman
and a case of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act were registered against him. In the said case the
criminal case was registered in the year 2017 and the departmental
proceedings were initiated in the year 2020. The Hon'ble Division
Bench had observed that there cannot be a clear cut formula laid
W.P.No.25330 of 2022
down to say as to whether the charges in the departmental
proceedings are same as the charges in the criminal proceedings
and in a given case if the charges in the departmental proceedings
are of such nature, it cannot be enquired into as the reasons for
such charges are totally and substantially the same as that of the
charges framed in the criminal proceedings. It was further observed
that when the result of the criminal trial will have a direct impact on
the outcome of the departmental proceedings, the Court may take a
view that the departmental proceedings may be deferred. In view of
the above observation, this Court finds that the decision to stay the
departmental proceedings during the pendency of a criminal case
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In view of the same, on perusal of the material on record, this
Court is of the opinion that the departmental proceedings should be
stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case against the petitioner
as both the departmental proceedings as well as criminal
proceedings are initiated on the basis of the very same set of facts
and list of witnesses. Respondents are however, given liberty to
proceed with departmental proceedings as soon as the criminal
proceedings are concluded.
8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
W.P.No.25330 of 2022
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 31.10.2022
bak
W.P.No.25330 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No. 25330 of 2022
Date: 31.10.2022
bak
