Allowed

A Satyanarayana v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024WP/6708/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A railway officer facing a CBI bribery trap case challenged the Tribunal's vacation of the interim stay of parallel disciplinary proceedings on identical evidence. The High Court held continuation would prejudice fair trial and set aside the Tribunal order, staying the enquiry till trial concludes.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order dated 16.02.2023 vacating stay set aside; departmental enquiry stayed till conclusion of CBI trial at Kurnool; liberty to resume after Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination.

A Satyanarayana Vs Union of India — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[ 3463 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6708 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

A SATYANARAYANA, S/o. A. Savaranna, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Occ. Chief Office Superintendent, O/o. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Kurnool District

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

UNION OF INDIA, rep., by the General Manager, Rail Nilayam, 3rd Floor, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶15

The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway,^Guntakal Divisiona, Guntakal, Kurnool District.

¶16

The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Kurnool District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS^

¶18

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 any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the order^dated 16.02.2023 in O.A. No. 402 of 2017(ANDHRA PRADESH) on the file of^the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad along with the related proceedings issued vide order dated 02.03.2023 in pursuance of Charge Memorandum

¶19

dated March, 2017 and quash the order dated 02.03.2023^{appointingthe} Inquiry Officer, with a direction to keep the Charge^{Memorandumdated} March, 2017 in abeyance till criminal trial in C.C.No.^{10of2022onthefile} of the court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool^{iscompletedand} accordingly grant all consequential reliefs . -

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the departmental proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent vide Memorandum, dated.../03/2017 pending^{disposalofthe} Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner{s): Sri. RAJA REDDY KONETI . ■ Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. DIVYA DATLA{CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶25

AND

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

W.P.No.6708 of 2023

¶28

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)

¶29

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed in O.A,No.402 of 2017 dated 16.02.2023 by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in vacating the interim order of stay of disciplinary proceedings.

¶30

The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as under:

¶31

The petitioner while working as Chief Office Superintendent, Nandyal, Guntakal Division of South Central Railways, the CBI had registered the case vide R.C.16(A)/2016 on the basis of a complaint of demand of bribe. A trap was laid and on the basis of trap on 02.07.2016, a final report was filed on 25.08.2016^wherein it was alleged that the petitioner demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000/from one P.Salumiah, Trackman IV for processing his transfer application. The Charges were framed on 23.01.2017 in C.C.No.16 of 2016 by the Learned III Additional Sub-Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The criminal case was subsequently^{transferredto} the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam on 27.11.2020^andthe

¶32

¶33

case was renumbered as C.C.No.32 of 2020. Again the case was transferred to Special Judge for CBI Cases at Kurnool^{andthecasewas} re-numbered as C.C.No.lO of 2022 and the case is pending.

¶34

Parallelly, the department issued Charge Memorandum vide Proceedings No.GZ/V/20160700380/P-9/17-05/A.S.N under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 on the very same Charges and in the list of documents and Witnesses mentioned in Annexure-III and Annexure IV of the Departmental Charge Sheet, the evidence relied on the Criminal Case were cited. Questioning the continuation of disciplinary proceedings on the same^{setoffactsand} evidence as that in the Criminal Case, the petitioner^{filedO.A.No.402of} 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad^and the Tribunal passed a reasoned interim order on 11.05.2017 staying the disciplinary enquiry. On 16.02.2023, the interim order of stay was vacated on the short ground that the same was in vogue^foroversix years, but O.A was kept pending. Hence, present Writ^{Petitionisfiled.}

¶35

Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Datia, Learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondents.

¶36

A trap laid by CBI drawing services of four officials where under the alleged receipt of Rs.3,000/- by the petitioner is the genesis for both the proceedings. The documentary evidence and witnesses cited in Annexure-III & IV of the departmental Charge Memo and the Criminal Case are identical. The C.B.I Officers and trap witnesses were shown in the list of witnesses of the departmental Charge Memorandum. Ideally, a trap case of this nature should be proved and established by the prosecution in a Criminal Court, but, on the basis of same oral and documentary evidence there cannot be a recce of criminal trial through departmental proceedings. This court is of the opinion that Right to fair trial" stands violated and continuation of departmental proceedings would not only prejudice the defense of the petitioner, but would enable the prosecution to overcome the gaps/loopholes in their case. One determinative test for staying the departmental proceedings vis-a-vis criminal proceedings is the genesis of what led to the other proceedings i.e., whether the departmental action led to filing of criminal case or criminal case has led to departmental enquiry. In the former, precedence should be given to the departmental proceedings and in the later, the departmental enquiry should be stayed in the interest of justice and^trial.

¶37

¶38

In this case, the criminal case has led to the initiation of departmental enquiry and continuation of departmental enquiry on identical facts and evidence would seriously violate^{theRighttofairtrial} of the petitioner.

¶39

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Pau! Anthony V. Bharat GordMiaes^ has opined that when the facts and evidence in both the criminal case as well as departmental enquiry are identical, the departmental enquiry should be stayed. This principle^{wasreiteratedin} State Bank of India v. A.G.D.Reddy^.

¶40

Therefore, following the principle laid down by Hon^bleSupreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the departmental^{enquiryshould} be stayed till the conclusion of the trial in the CBI Court,^Kurnool.The department is at liberty to proceed with the departmental^enquiryafter of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The recording of statement Special Judge for CBI cases at Kurnool shall endeavor^{todisposeofthe} trial at the earliest and the petitioner is directed to cooperate^withthe same.

¶41

'AIR 1999 SC 1416 ^2023 Live l^w4SC) 719

¶42

¶43

In view of the above, the impugned order passed by^theCentral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 16.02.2023^{inO.A.No.402of} 2017 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶44

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy registrar

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,