Vallem Venkata Rangaiah Vs the Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Limited

Vallem Venkata Rangaiah, S/o. China Ramaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occ Asst. Manager (Under Suspension) The Kurnool District Co-Operative Central Bank, Atmakur Branch, R/o. H.No. 6-145, Sunkulamma Kottala Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District,^A.P.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer and Disciplinary Authority, Having office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P.

¶15

The Chief Executive Officer, The Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Having office at Atmakur, Nandyal District,^A.P.

¶16

The Deputy General Manager, Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Atmakur Branch, Nandyal District, A.P.

¶17

Sri C. Thrinatha Reddy, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged about not known, Occ Assistant General Manager, DCG Bank, Head Office, Kurnool, The Enquiry Officer Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Atmakur Branch, Nandyal District, A.P

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

}

¶20

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 particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in passing proceedings vide Estt. Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26 dated 19-06-2025 and rejecting the request of the Petitioner to Stay the Departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner in Charge Memo bearing Ref. No. Estt / Memos and Charge Memos file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024 during the pendency of Criminal Case vide FIR No. 220 of 2024 the file of Atmakur Police Station, Nandyal District and directing the Petitioner to attend the oral enquiry vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 vide Ref. No. Estt. Section / Atmakur Branch / 2025-26 and proceeding with the enquiry of the departmental proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 against the Petitioner vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 vide Ref. No. Estt. Section / Atmakur Branch / 2025-26 in Charge Memo Ref. No. Estt / Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II

¶25

The Court made the following order:

¶26

7

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 15380 of 2025

¶29

% 04.09.2025

¶30

1) Vallem Venkata Rangaiah, S/o Chinna Ramaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occupation: Assistant Manager (under Suspension), The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank, Atmakur Branch, R/o H.No.6-145, Sunkulamma Kottala Vempenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P., Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

$ The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and DisciplinaryAuthority, Having Office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P., and 3 others .... Respondents

¶33

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar

¶34

! Counsel for the Respondents ; 1) Koteswara Rao Mummaneni 2) Govt. Pleader for Services II

¶35

< Gist: Disciplinary enquiry cannot stalled during the pendency of FIR.

¶36

Head Note:

¶37

? Cases referred:

¶38

(1999) 3 see 679

¶39

(1996) 6 see 417

¶40

2

¶41

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶42

WRIT PETITION No. 15380 of 2025

¶43

#Vallem Venkata Rangaiah, S/o Chinna Ramaiah, Aged about 39 years, Occupation: Assistant Manager (under Suspension), The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank, Atmakur Branch, R/o H.No.6-145, Sunkulamma Kottala Vennpenta Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Nandyal District, A.P.,

¶44

Petitioners

¶45

Versus

¶46

$ The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and Disciplinary Authority, Having Office at Atmakur, Nandyal District, A.P., and 3 others

¶47

Respondents

¶48

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.09.2025

¶49

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶50

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶51

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order?

¶52

Yes/No

¶53

Whether the copies of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

¶54

Yes/No

¶55

Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order ?

Yes/No

I

THY VIJAY, J

APHC010303692025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶61

[3460]

¶62

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶63

THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶66

WRIT PETITION NO: 15380/2025

¶67

Between:

¶68

1.VALLEM VENKATA RANGAIAH, S/0. CHINA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC ASST. MANAGER (UNDER SUSPENSION), THE KURNOOL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK. ATMAKUR BRANCH, R/0. H.NO. 6-145, SUNKULAMMA KOTTALA VEMPENTA VILLAGE, PAMULAPADU MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P.

¶69

...PETITIONER

¶70

AND

¶71

1.THE KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. HAVING OFFICE AT ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P.

¶72

2.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, HAVING OFFICE AT ATMAKUR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P.

¶73

3.THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., ATMAKUR BRANCH, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P.

¶74

2

¶75

known to

¶76

PETITIONER, aged ABOUT NOT KNOWN OCC ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, DCG BANK HEAD DISTRirr'^^'^'^n enquiry OFFICER, KURNOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD

¶77

ATMAKUR BRANCH, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P

¶78

...RESPONDENT(S): th., i'" Constitution of India praying Hioh therewith, the igh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of ^ Mandamus, declarino the Se't" Mt Respondents in passing proceedings vide Estt Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26 dated 19-06-2025 and rejecting initiated''^**- °! rlf® P®''t'°ner to stay the Departmental enquir^ initiated against the Petitioner in Charge Memo bearing Ref NoLw Memos and Charge Memos file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024 during the pendency of Criminal Case vide FIR No 220 of 2024 o„ the file A,ma„ur Police Station, Nandyal District and directing the 18/06/2025 dated vide Ref. No. Estt. Section/Atmakur Branch/2025-26 «lel^'°T. departmental proceedings as legal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the of the°"rimin T' ''^P^dmental enquiry till the conclusion the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner and on pass such other order.

¶79

LA NO: 1 OF 2n9./i

¶80

Petition under Section X praying that in the the High Court may be pleased to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 R f NO e" Branch/2025-26 in Charg^Memo W12/202finri™^"'°° K file/2024-25, dated vjl/12/2024 and pass such other order.

¶81

3

¶82

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶83

1.PS PSURESH KUMAR

¶84

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶85

1.KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI

¶86

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶87

The Court made the following:

¶88

1

¶89

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶90

WRIT PETITION No.15380 of 2025

¶91

ORDER:

¶92

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings vide Estt.Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26, dated 19.06.2025 issued by Respondents rejecting the request of the Petitioner to stay the Departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo bearing Ref.No.Estt.,/Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file/2024-25, dated 31.12.2024 during pendency of criminal case vide FIR.No.220 of 2024 on the file of the Atmakur Police Station, Nandyal District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶93

The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:

¶94

The Petitioner was appointed as Staff Assistant on 02.05.2016 in the Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (Respondent No.1) and was promoted as Assistant Manager in September, 2022. While so, a preliminary enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner on 30.09.2024 on certain irregularities pertaining to deficit cash balance in Atmakur Branch. After preliminary enquiry, the Chief Manager of Respondent No.1 was

¶95

appointed as Enquiry Officer to furnish a report with regard to irregularities in Atmakur Branch of Respondent No.1 Bank. 3. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted on 01.10.2024 to verify all the aspects relating to misappropriation of bank funds and furnish report. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Committee, a Charge Memorandum was issued to the Petitioner on 31.12.2024 vide Proceedings No.Estt./Memo's & Charge Memo’s File/2024-25 in which 7 Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner.

¶96

In substance, the charge against the Petitioner was that due to the misconduct, the financial loss to a tune of Rs.78,77,767/- was caused to Respondent No.1 bank. Before issuing the Charge Memorandum, a criminal complaint was lodged by the Deputy General Manager of Respondent No.1 Bank before Atmakur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 344 R/w 3(5) BNS, 66-D iTA-2000-2008 and the complaint was registered as F.I.R.No.220/2024, dated 05.10.2024.

¶97

After issuance of the Charge Memorandum, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 19.06.2025 requesting to stop proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry in view of the criminal corriplaint registered against him. The representation of the

¶98

3

¶99

Petitioner was rejected vide Estt.Section/Atmakur Branch/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025. Hence, the present Writ Petition^{cametobefiled.}

¶100

In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.1^to3, it was contended that there was a deficit cash balance of Rs.78,77,767/and the loss was attributed to gross negligence and failure of duty by the Petitioner as Passing Officer and Cashier Sri S.^{AlthafHussain.} It is also stated that the Petitioner was immediately suspended in terms of the Staff Service Regulations. It is further^stated that in Preliminary Enquiry Report, dated 02.11.2024, it was^observedas follows;

¶101

(i) The Cashier Scroll Book was neither verified nor attested by the Passing Officer (Petitioner herein) daily, which he was bound^to;

¶102

(ii) Physical Cash was not at all verified and not tallied daily, and transactions were not registered in the Passing Officer’s Scroll Register on September 26 and 21, 2024 which is a primary duty of the Passing Officer which he utterly failed to perform; (Hi) The Petitioner “negligently authorized the fictitious^{transactionsof} Cash Deposits received and the cash payments made”.^Hiscareless authorization of fictitious deposits entered by the Cashier (main accused) allowed the Cashier to transfer funds to his personal accounts, demonstrating the Petitioner’s complete negligence in performing of his legitimate duties and he was utterly failed in safeguarding the public money.

¶103

It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that the negligence of the Petitioner is not mere procedurai but with a pre-planned motive knowing fuliy well about the consequences of the misdeeds. It is further stated that the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the Charge Memorandum and the same was not found satisfactory and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct disciplinary enquiry. It is further stated that a perusal of Charge Memorandum and F.I.R would disclose regarding misappropriation of funds, but the scope of enquiry and investigation are completely different and hence sought for rejection of the Writ Petition.

¶104

Q. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Clause 10.2.2 of the Staff Service Regulations for District Co operative Central Bank in the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short “Service Regulations’), which states that in cases involving criminal trial and charges of grave nature, the Management should await the decision of the trial Court and stay the misconduct of the employee pending decision of the trial Court on the same fact, so that the defence is not prejudiced. The learned counsel would further submit that if the charge in the criminal case and the disciplinary enquiry is one and the same, the disciplinary enquiry ought to be stalled till the criminal case is concluded.

¶105

5

¶106

The learned Senior Counsel Smt. Sesha Rajyam would^submit that the scope of enquiry is totally different in criminal^caseandthe disciplinary enquiry and the nature of charges against^{thePetitioner} in the departmental proceedings are nothing to do with^thecriminal case and therefore she submits that the Writ Petition is misconceived.

¶107

The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that to compare the similarity in the Charge Memorandum and the criminal case, the charge sheet should have been filed in the criminal Court and only on comparison of similarity in the nature of charge, oral and documentary evidence, the disciplinary enquiry can be stayed, but the disciplinary enquiry cannot be stayed merely because F.I.R is registered against the Petitioner.

¶108

The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Clause 10.2.2 of Service F^egulations relied upon by^the learned counsel for the Petitioner also speaks of difference of the disciplinary enquiry when on same and identical charges criminal trial is being proceeded with by the concerned criminal Court. The^{learnedSenior} Counsel would submit that the said Clause would not have any application at the stage of F.I.R.

¶109

6

¶110

Having heard the respective counsel, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner can be stalled on account of criminal complaint?

¶111

Reasoning: In the charge memorandum. 7 articles of charge were framed against the petitioner, which are principally with regard to his duties as passing officer. The petitioner being the joint custodian of the entire cash in the branch had failed to verify cash balances, neglected In endorsing his signatures as passing officer scroll registered, authorised manipulated transactions blindly in CBS (Core banking solutions). It is stated that the petitioner 's negligence led to finfi^noical li^oo 4.1— r-i _ • to a tu.ne of Rs.73,67,767/-.

¶112

Taking note of the magnitude of the misappropriation, the Deputy General Manager of the Bank had oi given a police complaint and the same Was registered as FIR No.220 of 2024 for offences under Sections 61(2), 318(4) > 316(5), 336(3). 338, 344 R/w 3(5) BNS, 66-D ITA-2000-2008. Admittedly, no charge sheet is filed till date and the stage of investigation isi unknown.

¶113

Firstly, there is no legal bar for simultaneous holding of criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings. However, neither there Is an absolute bar nor stay can be granted as a matter of course. The

¶114

7

¶115

‘advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety' has to^{bedeterminedineach} case in the given facts.

¶116

Secondly, One of the grounds for stay of disciplinary proceedings vis-a-vis criminal cases emanated on the ground of similarity of charges in both the proceedings. In the most cited judgement in this line of litigation till date, i.e. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,’ the Hon’ble supreme court after referring to the case law till that point of time framed principles for stay of disciplinary proceedings as a guidance for exercise of discretion of advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety' . The paragraph 22 is extracted below;

¶117

The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

¶118

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar^intheir being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

¶119

(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^ofa grave nature which involves complicated questions of^law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

¶120

'(1999)3 see 679

¶121

8

¶122

( ) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law 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 against him during investigation or as reflected in the Charge-Sheet.

¶123

(iv)The factors mentioned at (ii) and (Hi) above cannot be considered in isolation to, stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

¶124

(v) If the criminal . does not proceed or its disposal Is

¶125

being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even If they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an earlv date sn lhaf if Ihp, found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he IS found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.

¶126

The point Nos.(ii) and (iii) would make it apparent that the stay of disciplinary enquiry can be granted pnly when the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts on the basis of the material collected in the investigation or charge sheet. In the present case, the criminal case is still at F.I.R stage and at this stage, there is no comparable yardstick to come to a conclusion that the criminal case is based on the same evidence an^ charges as in the departmental enquiry. It is to be noted that the

¶127

9

¶128

incident leading to both the proceedings cannot be^the criteria to determine similarity as the same incident may have different charges and evidence to support those charges. Ideally, the charge sheet in the criminal case would give a measure of similarity and identicalness in both the proceedings and only then^thecourtcan compare the respective charge sheets and consider staying^ofthe departmental enquiry.

¶129

Thirdly, even if the departmental enquiry and criminal^caseare based on identical charges;, and evidence, still there is no bar to proceed with departmental enquiry. The stay of disciplinary enquiry can be considered only when the criminal case involves complicated questions of fact and going back to the second point, this determination whether the criminal case involves complicated^facts can be examined only after a charge sheet is filed.

¶130

Fourthly, the reliance Clause 10.2.2 of the Staff Service Regulations for District Co-operative Central Bank in the State of Andhra Pradesh is misplaced. The said clause cannot be envisaged as a complete standstill of departmental proceedings^asaresultof the pendency of criminal proceedings and the clause has to be '^understood to mean that stay of the criminal proceedings is desirable, but not in all types of situations. In disciplinary cases

¶131

10

¶132

initiated on account of criminal case filed by a third party i.e either Section 498A IPC case, Cheque Dishonour case etc., the stay of departmental enquiry is desirable under the said clause, but the said clause cannot be seen as a hindrance to the cases of the present nature, where the criminal case as well as departmental enquiry were initiated by the bank.

¶133

Fifthly, the stay of departmental proceedings are granted^as the delinquent would have reveal his defence in the enquiry and that would cause prejudice in the criminal gase, provided the facts are complicated as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs B.K. Meena^. However, in this case, the petitioner at paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit had pleaded that he had submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memorandum and thereafter,^the Respondent No.4 was appointed as enquiry officer. Once, the statement of defence is filed by the delinquent, the plea of prejudice on account of revealing the defence in the criminal case would no longer be available and the departmental enquiry can be proceeded with.

(1996) 6 see 417

11

Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ^Petition.

¶138