Petitioner sought to quash departmental proceedings pending criminal trial. Court stayed departmental inquiry for one year directing criminal trial completion within same period to prevent prejudice.
Departmental proceedings stayed for one year pending disposal of criminal case; criminal trial directed to be completed within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR .
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SA
WRIT PETITION NO: 15558 OF 2024 .
Between:
Kalingiri Naganna, S/o. K. Naganna, Aged 63 years Occ Sub Registrar Grade -ll(Retired), O/o. Deputy Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) Department, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, R/o H.No. 87-1190-2, Plot No 136-A, Ganesh NagarII, Near Ramachandramission, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents to initiated and proceed the Departmental Proceedings vide Charge Memo G.O.Rt.No. 61,
REVENUE (VIGILINCE-II) DEPARTMENT dated 17.01.2023 pendency of criminal case vide C.C. No. 05/2023 in Cr.No. 13/RCT-KUR/2019 before Hon'ble SPL Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases atKurnoolonsame charge as highly illegal, arbitrary and voilative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to proceed further enquiry against the petitioner vide charge Memo G.O.Rt.No. 61, REVENUE (VIGILINCE-II) DEPARTMENT dated 17.01.2023.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to stay all further departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memo G.O.Rt.No. 61, REVENUE (VIGILINCE-II) DEPARTMENT dated 17.01.2023 issued by the 1st respondent pending criminal case vide C.C. No.05/2023beforethe Hon ble SPL Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases atKurnool.
Counsel for the Petltioner{s): SRI. T S N SUDHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE (STAMPS AND REGISTRATION)
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ; AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.15558 OF 2024
Between:
Kalingiri Naganna, S/o K.Naganna, Aged 63 years, Occ: Sub Registrar Grade - II (Retired), O/o Deputy Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) Department, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, R/o H.No.87-1190-2, Plot No.136-A, Ganesh Nagar II, Near Ramachandra mission. Kurnool, Kurnool District.
... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and two others.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar Counsel for respondents GP for Services -1
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent authorities in proceeding with the departmentalinquiry against the petitioner vide Charge Memo G.O.Rt.No.61 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, dated 17.01.2023, pending criminal
I
♦>
Page 2 of 8
SRS, J W.P.No.l5558 of 2024
proceedings in C.C.No.05 of 2023 in Cr.No.13/RCT-KUR/2019, as illegal and arbitrary.
*v
Page 3 of 8
SRS, J W.P.No.l5558of 2024
- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceeded with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulged defense, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and placed reliance upon the judgment of M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited\ wherein at para No.22, theHon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there isnobar 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 questionsof 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 factandlaw 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
^1999 (3) see 679
♦>
SRS, J W.P.No.15558 of 2024
Page 4 of 8
against him during investigation or as reflected in the chargesheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental to the fact that proceedings but due regard has to be given the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed does not proceed or its If the criminal case (V) delayed, the departmental disposal is being unduly account of the if they were stayed on proceedings, even of the criminal case. can be resumed and pendency conclude them at an early date, so proceeded with so as to that if the employee is found not guilty his honourmaybe vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest
Government Pleader would 5. Per contra, learned Assistant proceed with the inquiry simultaneously submit that there is no bar to of Secretary, Lucy the judgment and placed reliance upon Trust and Another v. Kailash Ranresh Tandel and Sequeira the Hon’ble Apex Court observed Others^, wherein at para No.17 as follows;
“17. It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and a criminal court are completely different. The proceedings in different and the purpose isdifferent,thestandardofproofis see 155 I
f, ^ (2019) 6 see 155
tv
Page 5 of 8
SRSJ W.P.No.15558 of 2024
approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges withwhichwe are concerned in the present matter can never be saidtobe amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings were pending. The allegations made against Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was requiredto be undertaken and such action by its very nature hadtobe completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approachofthe nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable.”
- However, the cast at hand, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on hisinvolvementinACB trap. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure -IIIandthelistof witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly the same. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge hisdefenseand it will cause prejudice to the petitioner.
1
a
Page 6 of 8
SRS, J W.P.No.15558 of 2024
. Neelam Nag and Anr^, 7. In State Bank of India and Others v Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to the Hon’ble Apex complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order.
of this order before the The petitioner shall file a copy ; concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. j
^ (2016) 9 5CC 491
Page 7 of 8
SRSJ W.P.No.15558 of 2024
If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in
Captain Paul Anthony’s case.
- With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposedofat the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
PRASAD ’ ASSISTANT REGISTI R
To,
SECTTON OFFICER
6. Three CD Copies
AL
HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/07/2024
ORDER
WP.No.15558 of 2024
DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether departmental proceedings should be stayed pending the conclusion of a criminal case involving similar charges?
Can the High Court stay departmental proceedings for a specific period to ensure expeditious disposal of the criminal case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines LimitedExplained¶40
M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited
State and Another v. Kailash Ranesh Tandel and Sequeira OthersExplained¶51
Trust and Another v. Kailash Ranesh Tandel and Sequeira Others
State Bank of India v. Neelam NagApplied¶64
State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalingiri Naganna
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
