WP/16615/2026 of M BALA SANKARA RAO Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 June 2026

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in concluding the departmental enquiry initiated vide C.No.01/OE-PR/A4/2025, dated 28.01.2025 and contemplating to pass final order without awaiting for the outcome of C.C.No.25 of 2026 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Bapatla District and pleased to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts in brief are as follows;

The Petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) on 04.11.2009 and has been working as such. While so, in the year 2024 a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner vide Cr.No.155 of 2024 dated 05.07.2024 before Chirala II Town P.S., for the offence punishable under Sections 11 B(1), 351(2), 324(2) R/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023 on the complaint given by one N. Venkateswara Rao alleging that the Petitioner had beat him in the afternoon of 04.07.2024. In the complaint, it was also mentioned that the Petitioner had threatened him to murder. After due investigation, Charge-sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2026 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

3. Parallelly, a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the Petitioner vide Proceedings dated 28.01.2025. The solitary charge against the Petitioner was with regard to the very same criminal case. It is stated that the witnesses are almost identical and even before the trial had commenced in the criminal case, the departmental enquiry was concluded. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, enquiry report was furnished holding that the Charge against the Petitioner is proved and the explanation to the said enquiry report was also offered by the Petitioner. At this stage, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking for staying of departmental enquiry.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the Respondents submits that though criminal case has been filed, after submission of enquiry report, the Petitioner had filed his Written Statement of Defence and had willingly participated in the departmental enquiry and there are no bona fides in the present Writ Petition.

5. Heard the respective counsels.

6. The solitary charge in the departmental enquiry is with regard to beating one N. Venkateswara Rao on 04.07.2024. The Article of Charge also refers to the criminal case registered against the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had tarnished the image of police in the public and violated

Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The criminal case was also with regard to the very same incident as apparent from a reading of the Charge-Sheet.

7. Though there is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously, the only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But, even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. Most importantly, the cause of action to seek a stay of departmental enquiry is available before giving the Written Statement of Defence, for the reason that the defence of the delinquent in the criminal case is not prejudiced.

8. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena1 at Paragraph 14 would be relevant. “14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be ‘desirable’, ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary 1 (1996) 6 SCC 417

proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that “the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced”. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact.”

9. The above is the core principle, which had been reiterated in several Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Rabindra Kumar Bharti2, the fact scenario is similar to this case. In that case, departmental proceedings were sought to be stayed on account of pendency of criminal case. The Single Judge did not grant stay and the departmental proceedings were proceeded with. The delinquent therein participated in the enquiry by filing his Statement of Defence. After the order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority, the Division Bench stayed the further proceedings in the 2 2022(12) SCC 390

departmnatal enquiry, as the same would prejudice the case of the delinquent in the criminal case.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the same as the petitioner filed his written statement of defence and participated in the enquiry. The paragraphs 14,15 and 16 are extracted below;

14. Even applying the principles as such to the facts, that is, examining its impact on the destiny of this case, we find as follows : When the respondent was faced with the disciplinary proceeding, he approached the High Court. Apparently, he sought stay of the proceedings. The High Court did not deem it appropriate to grant stay of the disciplinary proceeding. Instead, as noticed by us by order dated 29-6-2017, the proceedings were allowed to be continued. According to the appellant(s) proper enquiry was held and the respondent participated. As to whether the enquiry was held properly or not is not a matter on which we do express our opinion. However, at the end of the enquiry as held by the appellant in view of the order passed by the High Court the appellant sought permission to pass the final order, or the appropriate order of penalty. This led to the disposal of the writ petition itself by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge in the judgment noticed that this is a case where the respondent had already revealed his defence by participating in the proceedings. It is further found that order dated 29-6-2017, which permitted the enquiry to be continued was not challenged. The learned Single Judge accordingly permitted the disciplinary proceedings to attain finality at the hands of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority accordingly passed an order dismissing the respondent from service. No doubt this is during the pendency of the appeal.

15. In the appeal, the order of the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent was not the subject-matter of challenge by way of an amendment in the writ petition. The Division Bench has posed the question as to what would happen if the criminal trial culminates in acquittal and it is thereafter that the High Court deemed it appropriate also apparently with reference to its power under Order 41 Rule 33 to pass the order keeping in abeyance the order of dismissal and it was to become operative upon the criminal trial going against the respondent.

16. We would notice that what is most pertinent is the aspect that in the challenge in the writ petition against the holding of the disciplinary proceedings, obtaining of an interim order in the nature of the case was of relevance and importance to the question at hand. The principle involved being that when parallel proceedings are held on the basis of identical charges and the same evidence, the employee should not be allowed to disclose his defence. This aspect of the matter is to be looked into with reference to the effect of the order dated 29-6-2017.

11. In this case, the Petitioner filed his Statement of Defence and willingly participated in the enquiry by filing his Written Statement of Defence. After the enquiry report was submitted holding that the Charge against the Petitioner was proved, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. As the Petitioner had filed Written Statement of Defence and had willingly participated in the departmental enquiry revealing his defence, this Court is of the opinion that there are no bona fides in filing the present Writ Petition and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.

12. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 25.06.2026

IS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.16615 of 2026

Date: 25.06.2026

IS