B R R Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VADDESWARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE SRIKALAHASTHI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ADHONI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating the departmental enquiry and proceeding to conduct enquiry into the departmental proceedings by issuing Charge Memo vide Roc.No.R8129678/2023/C3-2 dt.27.08.2025 issued by the 2ND respondent in spite of

¶19

2

¶20

pendency of the criminal case vide F.I.R. No.10/RCT-KUR/2023 on the file of the A.C.B, Kurnool Range Police Station, Kurnool District, on the same set of allegations/charges as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to conduct departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against the Petitioner and pass

¶21

IA 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 in pursuant to the Charge Memo vide Roc.No.R-8129678/2023/C3-2 dt.27.08.2025 issued by 2ND respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.N ASWARTHA NARAYANA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.B SIVA SANKARA RAO SC For Services to Municipalities in rayalaseema, Nellore

¶27

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.26567 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction for conclusion of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide Roc.No.R-8129678/2023/C3-2, dated 27.08.2025, in view of the pendency of a criminal case in FIR No.10/RCTKUR/2023 on the file of the A.C.B., Kurnool Range Police Station, Kurnool District, which has been numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool.

¶33

The charge against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is that, while working as Manager, Office of the Municipal Commissioner, Adoni Municipality, the petitioner demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from one Sri Nallagoti Srinivasulu on 29.09.2023 through Junior Assistants Smt. Kallukunta Mahalakshmi and Sri Dandigeri Krishna Charan, Adoni Municipality, and further demanded and accepted an additional bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from the said Sri Nallagoti Srinivasulu.

¶34

The said C.C.No.25 of 2025 was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, on the ground that pursuant to a trap conducted by the ACB authorities, the petitioner demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- on 29.09.2023 through the aforesaid Junior

¶35

4

¶36

Assistants, and further demanded an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- on 09.10.2023 for doing an official favour, namely, processing and issuing a NonDrawal Certificate to Sri Nallagoti Srinivasulu for release of his pending half salaries during his suspension period.

¶37

The ACB authorities, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet, which was taken cognizance of as C.C.No.25 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, based on the very same allegations that form the subject matter of the departmental proceedings. A perusal of Annexure–III to the charge memo indicates that the list of witnesses cited therein is identical to that in the criminal case. Likewise, Annexure–IV, which lists the documentary evidence, refers to the FIR and documents forming part of the criminal case record.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who does not dispute that the evidence in both proceedings is substantially the same.

¶39

This Court has examined the charge sheet and the departmental enquiry papers. It is evident that the allegations, witnesses, and documents in both proceedings are identical. In such circumstances, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and

¶40

5

¶41

another¹ , the departmental enquiry may be stayed to avoid prejudice for a

¶42

limited period of one year. The Sessions Court is also expedite the trial.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶44

i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of one (01) year.

¶45

ii) The learned Sessions Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool, shall endeavour to complete the trial in C.C.No.25 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year from the date of receipt of this order.

¶46

iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate for early conclusion of the criminal trial. In the event the petitioner is found to be delaying or evading the process of the Court, the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to proceed with the departmental enquiry notwithstanding the stay.

¶47

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

_______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶50

Date: 04.11.2025 SNI

¶51

1 (2016) 9 SCC 491s

¶52

6