Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22019/2026 of Botchu Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 4 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22019/2026 Between: 1. BOTCHU SURESH, S/O VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
APHC010409072026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 22019/2026
Between:
1. BOTCHU SURESH, S/O VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(I.D.NO. 1071329), OPERATION DIVISION, ZONE -1, APEPDCL, DONDAPARTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
R/O FLAT NO.FF2, 5TH FLOOR, SAVITRIRAJA SOUDHAM, VENKATARAJA
NAGAR,
DONDAPARTHI,
VISALDRAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530016.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL.
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.
2. EASTERN
DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, P AND T COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP - 530013.
3. THE DIRECTOR HRD FAC, EASTERN DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY OF AP (APEPDCL), P AND T COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISALDIAPATNAM, AP - 530013.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EPDCL OF AP LTD, P AND T
COLONY, SEETHAMMADARA, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP -
530013.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 toissue a writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.EPCOR-06004
(26)/2/2023-DC-
2/COR(E-440042)
(VSP)/SAP.No.3090-50050/I.No.943663/ 2025, dt.22-10- 2025, and the Memo No.E-5 07919/EPCOR-14001(02)77/2026 - ENQUIRIES, (F.No.623/26), I.No. 1008174/26, dt.14-07-2026 issued by the 4th Respondent by fixing the enquiry against the petitioner on 21-07- 2026 and subsequently adjourned to 08-08-2026 pending ACB
Cases in C.C.No.50/2025 on the file of Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam, U/Sec. 7 (a) (b) of Prevention of Conmption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Memo No.E-507919/EPCOR-14001(02)/7/2026 - ENQUIRIES, (F.No.623/26), I.No. 1008174/26, dt.14-07-2026
issued by the 4th Respondent by fixing the date as 08-08-2026 till the conclusion of the criminal in trial in C.C.No.50/2025 on the file of Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for ACB cases, Visalchapatnam, U/Sec. 7 (a) (b) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 all further proceedings in revised Charge Memo No.EPCOR-06004
(26)72/2023-DC-
2/COR(E-440042) (VSP)/SAP.No.3090-50050/I.No.943663/ 2025, dt.22-10-2025
and
the
Memo
No.E-507919/EPCOR-
14001(02)77/2026 - ENQUIRIES, (F.No.623/26), I.No. 1008174/26, dt. 14-07-2026 issued by the 4TH Respondent till the finalization of the criminal trial in C.C.No.50/2025 on the file of Court of III Addl.
District & Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for ACB cases, Visaldiapatnam
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.22019 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent–Authorities in proceeding with departmental enquiry initiated vide Memo No.E-507919/EPCOR-14001(02)/7/2026- ENQUIRIES(F.No.623/26), I.No.1008174/26, dated 14.07.2026, during the pendency of criminal case in CC No.50 of 2025 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under:
The Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer through direct recruitment on 05.02.2007 and was posted to work at Araku. He is presently serving in the Operation Division, Zone-I, APEPDCL, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam District. While the Petitioner was discharging his duties at Dondaparthi Section – 1, a complaint, dated 26.12.2023 was registered against the Petitioner under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 alleging demanding of bribe of Rs.60,000/- for doing official favour. Later Government issued a charge memo vide Memo No.EPCOR-06004(26)/2/2023-DC-2-
COR(E-440042)(VSP)/SAP.NO.3090-500050/I.No.943663/2025, dated 22.10.2025 and Petitioner submitted his statement of defense to it.
3. Parallelly, Police Department has proceeded with the investigation and filed a charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.50 of 2025 on the file of Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam. 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 him. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1.
4. 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 Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others2.
5. Heard the counsels.
1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155
6. Reasoning: The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.14/RCT- ACB-VSP/2023, dated 26.12.2023. 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 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:-
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.
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.
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.
7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:-
(i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Memo No.EPCOR-06004(26)/2/2023- DC-2-COR(E-440042)(VSP)/SAP.NO.3090-500050 /I.No.943663/2025, dated 22.10.2025 shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today.
(ii) The learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Visakhapatnam shall complete the trial in C.C.No.50 of 2025, 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.
(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.
(iv) If the trial is not concluded within the period of one year, the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with.
(v) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.08.2026 chs
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.22019 of 2026 Dated: 05.08.2026
chs