Sankoju Brahma Chary vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5505 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

                       W.P.No. 25293 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.20/2022/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.20/2022/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 on 24.12.2010

as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter, in course of transfer, he

was posted to P.S.Bollaram w.e.f. 10.11.2017. It is submitted that

while working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Bollaram, a

W.P.No.25293 of 2022

complaint was given by one Smt.K.N.Ambika, W/o.J.Narsingh Rao

that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for not

arresting her husband, who was facing criminal charges. It was

complained that the negotiations were made through one M.Nagesh,

constable and payment have also been made through PhonePay.

Therefore, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and

Mr.M.Nagesh, constable and the same is pending trial in C.C.No.17

of 2022. It is submitted that while the FIR was registered on

17.06.2019, vide memo dated 24.03.2022, the respondents have

initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and served

the copy of the articles of charges on the petitioner. It is submitted

that the petitioner, has immediately made representations dated

01.04.2022 and 25.05.2022 respectively, to the 2nd respondent

requesting him to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner in abeyance until 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.

W.P.No.25293 of 2022

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

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 Sub-Inspector of Police, has

indulged in demanding and accepting bribe through Sri.Nagesh,

constable and that the entire conversation between the complainant

and constable 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

(1999) 3 SCC 671

W.P.No.25293 of 2022

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 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

W.P.No.25293 of 2022

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

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

W.P.No.25293 of 2022

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.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand

closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 31.10.2022 bak

W.P.No.25293 of 2022

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION No. 25293 of 2022

Date: 31.10.2022 bak