Shaik Haseena Bee Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE (VIGILANCE-ILL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIJAYAWADA

¶15

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶16

THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NANDYAL 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ,

¶19

2

¶20

Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings vide vide GORt.No.444 Revenue (Vigilance.Ill) Department dt.03.05.2023, pending CC.No.24 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Kurnool as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide vide GORt.No.444 Revenue (Vigilance.Ill) Department dt.03.05.2023, pending CC.No.24 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Kurnool 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 pleased to stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide vide GORt.No.444 Revenue (Vigilance.Ill) Department dt.03.05.2023, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.M/S INDUS LAW FIRM

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶30

W.P.No.31789 of 2025

¶31

ORDER :

¶32

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent–authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.444 Revenue (Vigilance.III) Department dated 03.05.2023, pending C.C.No.24 of 2023 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Kurnool as arbitrary and illegal.

¶33

The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under:

¶34

The Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Tahsildar on 26.11.2012 and was promoted as Tahsildar on 22.12.2018 and has been discharging her duties ever since. While so, a complaint dated 07.11.2019 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 alleging demanding of bribe of Rs.4,00,000/- for doing official favour. Later Government issued a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.444 dated 03.05.2023. In pursuance thereof, Petitioner submitted a letter dated 31.05.2023 seeking for certain documents and evidence, but till date no documents were provided to the Petitioner.

¶35

4

¶36

Parallelly, Police Department has proceeded with the investigation and filed a charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.24 of 2023 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Kurnool. The Petitioner further submits that the criminal case and the disciplinary case are with respect to the same incident and it will cause prejudice to the Petitioner. She placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited¹ .

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the enquiry simultaneously and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶38

Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others² .

¶39

Reasoning : The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on her involvement in Cr.No.14/RCTKUR/2019 dated 07.11.2019. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexures and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are almost similar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and

¶40

1 1999 (3) SCC 679

¶41

2 (2019) 6 SCC 155

¶42

5

¶43

others v. Neelam Nag and another³ , balancing the interest of department for expeditious conclusion of departmental enquiry as well as the prejudice of departmental enquiry on the criminal case affecting the delinquent, issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order. Paragraphs 27 to 29 thereof are extracted below:

¶44

27. Accordingly, we exercise discretion in favour of Respondent 1 of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial, as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court and do not consider it fit to vacate that arrangement straightaway. Instead, in our opinion, interests of justice would be sufficiently served by directing the criminal case pending against Respondent 1 to be decided expeditiously but not later than one year from the date of this order. The trial court shall take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined on day-to-day basis. In case any adjournment becomes inevitable, it should not be for more than a fortnight, when necessary.

¶45

28 . We also direct that Respondent 1 shall extend full cooperation to the trial court for an early disposal of the trial, which includes cooperation by the advocate appointed by her.

¶46

3 (2016) 9 SCC 491

¶47

6

¶48

29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1 shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to Respondent 1 of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order.

¶49

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶50

(i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.444 dated 03.05.2023 shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today.

¶51

(ii) The learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Kurnool shall complete the trail in C.C.No.24 of 2023, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year considering the fact that the departmental proceedings are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case.

¶52

(iii) The Petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court and shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the criminal case.

¶53

7

¶54

(iv) If the trial is not concluded within the period of one year, the

¶55

departmental proceedings can be proceeded with.

¶56

(v) No order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand