Partly allowed

Kakarla Sesha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Oct 2019WP/12782/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition challenging departmental proceedings initiated alongside pending criminal charges. The court held that proceedings must advance within three weeks while payment of subsistence allowance during suspension is mandatory, distinguishing prior Supreme Court precedents based on charge sheet status.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to conduct departmental proceedings within three weeks and pay subsistence allowance during suspension.

Kakarla Sesha Rao Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12782 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the third respondent in proceeding with departmental proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of Article of Charges dated 06.7.2019 pending criminal proceedings in pursuance of crime No.379 of 2017 of Gudur-I Town Police Station, and also the action of the third respondent in not paying subsistence allowance, is contrary to Order No.179 of the A.P. Police Manual Part-I, Volume-I.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶6

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was kept under suspension by virtue of the proceedings of the third respondent in C.No.1607/G1/2017, ROO.No.1169/2017, dated 24.12.2017, and departmental proceedings were initiated by virtue of the charge memo issued by the third respondent in C.No.07/PR/2019, dated 06.7.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the basis for the charge memo is criminal case in Crime No.379 of 2017 of Gudur-I Town Police Station, registered against him. The counsel relies on two judgments of the Supreme Court. The first case in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. ,¹ does not apply to the facts of the present case, as in the said case, the Supreme Court held that as the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer at the disciplinary proceedings shall stand vitiated. In the second case in

¶7

1 (1999) 3 SCC 679

¶8

¶9

SBI v. Neelam Nag² , the Supreme Court by relying on the judgment

¶10

in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G.Vittal Rao³ , summed up the principles,

¶11

at paragraph No.14, as follows:

¶12

(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.

¶13

(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts or law.

¶14

(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶15

(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common .

¶16

(emphasis supplied)

¶17

In this case, the Government Pleader submits that the charge sheet is not yet filed. Hence, the judgment in Neelam Nag (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of this case, as the departmental proceedings cannot go on simultaneously only when both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In this case, since the charge sheet is not filed, we do not know as to what the evidence is going to forth-come. The counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Order 179 of the A.P. Police Manual Part-I, Volume-I, when a criminal case is pending in a court, departmental proceedings should be suspended. In such cases, it must be decided whether the departmental proceedings should be taken in the first instance before filing a charge sheet. However, departmental enquiry can take place simultaneously with police investigation. Laying of charge sheet, subject to limitations

¶18

2 (2016) 9 SCC 491

¶19

3 (2012) 1 SCC 442

¶20

¶21

provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, can be delayed till the departmental action is completed.

¶22

Hence, in view of the above Order, and also considering that charge sheet is not yet filed, the respondents are directed to conduct departmental proceedings against the petitioner by taking a decision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the departmental proceedings shall stand stayed automatically. If the respondents decide to continue the disciplinary proceedings, they shall complete the same before filing of the charge sheet. During the period of suspension, the respondents shall pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶23

The writ petition, with the above directions, is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶24

______________ T. RAJANI, J

¶25

October 01, 2019. YS

Kakarla Sesha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakarla Sesha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch R Rao Vs the Regional Provident Fund

Paravada Venkata Ramana, Vs The Anakapalle Rural Electric Co-operative Society limited

Mobina Mohammed Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.v.v.S,Bapi Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Apstate Drda Empl Welfare Union and 2 Oth Vs Spl Chief Secty,P.Raj and Rd Dept and Anothe