Kaki Appala Raju Vs Chinni Jeji Babu

The above writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari by calling records about P.G.Case.No.2 of 2014 on the file of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Eluru District and consequently quash the proceedings.

¶21

Heard Sri Ilapakurti Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 filed a case on the file of respondent No.2 vide P.G. Case No.2 of 2024 under

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

SRS,J W.P.No.12773 of 2025

¶25

the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 against the petitioner, claiming a gratuity amount of Rs.32,857/- with interest. He also would submit that respondent No.1 committed theft of a cheque on 16.08.2024. A case in Cr.No.136 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 381, 406, 403 of IPC on the file of Tadiakalapudi Police Station was registered against respondent No.1. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chintalapudi, West Godavari, convicted respondent No.1 in C.C.No.87 of 2015 and sentenced for three years along with fine. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 vide Crl.A.No.296 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Addl. District & Sessions Judge Court, West Godavari, was allowed, and respondent No.1 was acquitted by judgment dated 24.10.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition vide Crl.RC.No.769 of 2024, and the same is pending consideration.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that pending the criminal case and criminal appeal, respondent No.2 did not proceed with the inquiry. However, since the criminal appeal was allowed, respondent No.2 issued notice in P.G.Case No.2 of 2014 vide Ex.P1. Learned counsel would also submit that in the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner, in para No.5, it was specifically mentioned about the alleged theft committed by respondent No.1.

¶27

As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the filing of P.G. Case by respondent No.1, and filing of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party–petitioner herein and issuance of notice by respondent No.2 to the petitioner by fixing the date for hearing on 22.01.2025. Since the pleadings are completed and there is no stay operating regarding the continuation of P.G Case No.2 of 2014, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ of Certiorari is not justifiable. The authority is yet to adjudicate the issue.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

SRS,J W.P.No.12773 of 2025

¶30

Given the facts and circumstances of the case and since the P.G. Case No.2 of 2014 is pending before the respondent No.2, the learned respondent No.2 shall consider the pleadings of the parties and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per law. The petitioner is at liberty to file the additional papers, if any strictly as per the Rules.

¶31