Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/15656/2026 of K Riyad Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 June 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15656/2026 Between: 1. K RIYAD BASHA, S/O. MASTAN VALI LATE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
APHC010294892026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 15656/2026
Between:
1. K RIYAD BASHA, S/O. MASTAN VALI LATE, AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, OCC POLICE CONSTABLE, WORKING AT
BELLAMKONDA PS, PALNADU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE
STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
REP.BY
ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
HOME
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT.
...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in initiating and proceeding with parallel departmental enquiry against the petitioner in pursuance to the Article of charges issued vide C.No.33/A6/OE- PR/2025
Dated24.09.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent even though criminal cases are pending against the petitioner on identical allegations vide Cr.No.20/2025 Dated 17.04.2024 of Medikonda PS
registered U/s 118(1), 118 (2), 115(2), 351 (3) r/w 3(5) BNS as illegal, arbitrary, double Jeopardy and consequently direct the
Respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry till finalization of criminal case and to pass such 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to finalize the departmental enquiry initiated through proceedings C.No.33/A6/OE-PR/2025 Dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent until finalization of criminal cases that are pending against the petitioner based on identical allegations Cr.No.20/2025 Dated 17.04.2024 of Medikonda PS registered U/s 118(1), 118 (2), 11 j(2), 351 (3) r/w 3(5) BNS and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.15656 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 :
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondent–authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide C.No.33/A6/OE-PR/2025 dated 24.09.2025, pending C.C.No.3915 of 2025 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, as arbitrary and illegal.
2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under:
The Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 05.05.2018 in erstwhile Guntur District and has been discharging his duties ever since. While so, based on a complaint, Cr.No.20 of 2025 dated 17.04.2024 was registered against the Petitioner under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of BNS and the same was taken cognizance by the Court and numbered as C.C.No.3915 of 2025 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that parallelly, pending the said criminal case, the 2nd Respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued C.No.33/A6/OE-PR/2025 dated 24.09.2025. 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. 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. Reasoning: The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.20 of 2025 dated 17.04.2024. 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 1 1999 (3) SCC 679 2 (2019) 6 SCC 155 3 (2016) 9 SCC 491
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.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide C.No.33/A6/OE-PR/2025 dated 24.09.2025 shall remain stayed for a period of one year from today.
(ii) The learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur shall complete the trial in C.C.No.3915 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: 22.06.2025 KLP