Alladi Gnanasree Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

ALLADI GNANASREE, W/O MANNEM MURALIDHAR, AGED 42 YEARS, FORMERLY DISTRICT MALARIA OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, R/O D.NO.09-16- 245, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR PARK, BANKERS COLONY, 2NDLANE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, JIEALTH, MEDICAL FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521225.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJARRLAHENDRAVARAM - 533001.

¶16

THE ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 521225.

¶17

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE - 523001.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

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

¶20

2

¶21

pleased toPleased to issue a Writ Order direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or departmental proceedings issued by the respondent no.l against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.709, HM FW (VC.I) Department, dated 16.10.2025, and the consequential charge memo communicated vide Rc.No.l5402/VClI B/2024-2 dated 27.10.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, asthe said action is egregiously violative of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the departmental proceedings are premised on identical charges and evidence as the criminal trial pending in C.C. No. 6/2025 before the Special Judge for SPE ACB Cases, Nellore, and its continuation would compel the Petitioner to prematurely divulge her defence, thereby vitiating her right to a fair trial under Article 21 and offending the equality and fairness mandates under Articles 14 and 16of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.709, HM FW (VC.I) Department, dated 16.10.2025, and the consequential charge memo communicated vide Rc.No. 15402/VCII B/2024-2 dated 27.10.2025 issued by the respondent no.l and to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings in the departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.709, HM&FW (VC. I) Department, dated 16.10.2025, and the consequential charge memo communicated vide Rc.No.l5402/VCII B/2024-2 dated 27.10.2025, issued by the respondent no.l pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.709, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.1) Department, dated 16.10.2025, and the consequential charge memo vide Rc.No.15402/VCII B/2024-2, dated 27.10.2025, while C.C. No.6 of 2025 is pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law.

¶32

The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

¶33

a. The petitioner is a senior officer belonging to the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services (APM&HS) cadre and has served as District Malaria Officer in various districts. The petitioner was posted as District Malaria Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole, on 11.04.2022 and is presently working as District Malaria Officer in the Office of the District Medical Officer, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram.

¶34

b. While so, a complaint dated 30.01.2024 was lodged against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.1,40,000/- for extending an official favour. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.709, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.1) Department, dated 16.10.2025, initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, followed

¶35

4

¶36

by the consequential charge memo in Rc.No.15402/VCII B/2024-2, dated

¶37

27.10.2025.

¶38

Parallelly, the Police Department completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No.6 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The petitioner further contends that the criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings arise out of the same incident and are based on the same set of facts. It is submitted that permitting the disciplinary proceedings to continue during the pendency of the criminal case would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. She placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v.

¶39

Bharat Gold Mines Limited¹ .

¶40

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is no legal bar to proceed with the departmental enquiry simultaneously with the criminal proceedings and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others² .

¶41

Reasoning : The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of her alleged involvement in Crime No.3/RCTOGL/2024, dated 30.01.2024. The list of witnesses annexed to the charge memo and the list of witnesses cited in the charge sheet are substantially the same.

¶42

1 1999 (3) SCC 679

¶43

2 (2019) 6 SCC 155

¶44

5

¶45

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State Bank of India and others v.

¶46

Neelam Nag and another³ , while balancing the interest of the department in ensuring the expeditious conclusion of the departmental enquiry with the need to avoid prejudice to the delinquent employee in the pending criminal proceedings, directed the Sessions Court to conclude the criminal trial as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not later than one year from the date of the order. Paragraphs 27 to 29 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

¶47

“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.

¶48

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.

¶49

3 (2016) 9 SCC 491

¶50

6

¶51

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.”

¶52

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶53

(i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.709, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.1) Department, dated 16.10.2025, shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today.

¶54

(ii) The learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, shall conclude the trial in C.C. No.6 of 2025, pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, having regard to the fact that the departmental proceedings have been stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.

¶55

(iii) The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, and shall extend full cooperation for the expeditious disposal of the criminal case.

¶56

7

¶57

(iv) If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of one year, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceedings in accordance with law.

¶58