The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M. Nagarjuna Reddy

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the interim order passed in^{WP.No.10148/2019} dt.20-08-2019 pending disposal of the above writ appeal.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N RUPESWARA REDDY

¶29

The Court made the following order:

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶31

&

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶33

WRIT APPEAL No.399 of 2020

¶34

JUDGMENT:fPer Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶35

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 20.08.2019 passed in W.RNo.10148 of 2019.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the Sri N.Rupeswar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶37

During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the 1®* respondent^died and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as legal representatives of the 1®* respondent.

¶38

The facts leading to this appeal are that the Respondent^No.1 who was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1993 was implicated in a criminal proceedings in O.R.No.183/2011-12 of Forest Range Officer, Kadapa registered for the offences punishable under Section 20(i) (C) (iii) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Sandalwood and Red-Sanders Wood Transit Rules, 1969 and under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 basing on the Confessional statement of the accused. Thereafter, Memorandum of Charges in C.NO.12/OEPR/2012, dated 09.06.2012 are framed. Aggrieved by the same. Respondent No.1 herein filed O.A.No.6969 of 2012 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

¶39

2 DEV,J & AHHs,^ W.A.No.399 of 202Q

¶40

Tribunal at Hyderabad and the said application was disposed of by order, dated 21.09.2016, with a direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein to stop departmental enquiry till completion of the criminal proceedings in O.R.No. 183/2011-12 of Forest Range Officer, Kadapa. Thereafter, the police filed referred charge sheet deleting the name of Respondent^No.1 herein from the offence as they could not collect any incriminating material against Respondent No.1 and the disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent No.1 were stopped by the order of the Andhra Pradesh^{AdministrativeTribunal} at Hyderabad and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it was held that two parallel proceedings on^{thesamesetoffacts} cannot be continued. Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.10148^{of2019beforethis} Court against the action of the respondents therein in continuing the departmental proceedings initiated against him even though the police filed referred charge sheet against him in the said crime.After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition, setting aside the departmental proceedings initiated against Respondent^No.1 and with a direction to the petitioner herein to consider the name of Respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Head Constable. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants^would submit that the learned Judge ought to have seen why the 1®* respondent herein falsely stated that his name was deleted in the charge sheet. Admittedly, it is a valid statement as a matter of fact. As per the learned

¶42

3 DEVJ & AHHSJ W.A.No.399of2020

¶43

Government Pleader, the 1®* respondent was figured^{asAccusedNo.4} in the charge sheet. The learned Government Pleader further^contends that the departmental enquiry and the criminal prosecution are entirely different. Therefore, departmental proceedings cannot be set aside on the ground of false information. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum’s Case held that the departmental enquiry can be processed even during pendency of the criminal proceedings.

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that^there is no substance in the contention of the learned Government Reader that the name of Respondent No.1 is shown in the charge sheet^asAccused No.4. Admittedly, the case was referred against the respondents by the concerned police authorities. Further, he submits that the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana^{andtheStateof} Andhra Pradesh in the case of K.Hari Das Vs. State of A.P ^ held that promotion cannot be denied only on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the person.

¶45

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the^noticeofthis Court that during pendency of the Writ Appeal, the 1®‘ respondent died and before his death by implementing the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.08.2019 the appellants promoted Respondent No.3 as Head Constable. Now the grievance of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that even though the appellants have issued proceedings promoting the 1®' respondent as ^ .WP.NO.S690 of 2016

¶46

4 DEVJ & AHHs,, W.A.No.399of2020

¶47

Head Constable in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, but after demise of the 1®* respondent, the appellants are denying the monetary benefits, for which, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are legally entitled to.

¶48

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side, this Court is unable to accept^{thesubmission} of learned counsel for the 1®' respondent that his name is not included in the charge sheet filed by the concerned police before the Additional Judicial 1®' Class Magistrate, Kadapa. On perusal of the charge sheet filed by the Forest Range Officer, Kadapa, dated 15.03.2019, the name of the Respondent No.1 is shown as Accused No.4. There is no material to show what happened subsequently in the criminal proceedings before the demise of the 1®‘ respondent i.e., whether the competent Criminal Court has convicted the 1®‘ respondent or whether the criminal proceedings are^{concludedornot.}

¶49

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the 1®‘ respondent died on 12.02.2025 after promoting as Head Constable in compliance^oftheorderof the learned Single Judge and as no stay order is passed by the Division Bench of this Court against the order of the learned Single Judge, in our considered view, interference of this Court at this stage in the order of the learned Single Judge is not warranted.

¶50