Departmental Inquiry Stayed Pending Criminal Trial on Similar Corruption Charges: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2025-04-21

Andhra Pradesh High Court Stays Departmental Inquiry Against Police Officer Pending Corruption Trial

Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh – In a recent judgment, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has stayed departmental proceedings initiated against a Sub-Inspector of Police, R. Narasimha Murthy, pending the outcome of a criminal trial related to similar allegations of corruption. The order was issued by Justice Subba Reddy Satti in Writ Petition No. 23270 of 2024 on October 16, 2024.

Case Background

The petitioner, R. Narasimha Murthy, challenged a charge memo issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Respondent 1) initiating a departmental inquiry against him. This inquiry stemmed from allegations that also form the basis of a criminal case, CC No. 7 of 2024, pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Murthy argued that proceeding with the departmental inquiry while the criminal case is ongoing would prejudice his defense in the criminal trial. He contended that he might be forced to reveal his defense in the departmental inquiry, which could then be used against him in the criminal proceedings.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel: Sri G. Seena Kumar , representing the petitioner, argued that conducting parallel proceedings would be unjust and arbitrary. He cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Captain M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited , emphasizing that while departmental and criminal proceedings can run concurrently, it is desirable to stay departmental proceedings if both are based on identical facts and the criminal charge is grave and involves complex issues. He argued that forcing the petitioner to disclose his defense in the departmental inquiry would severely prejudice his criminal case.

Respondent's Counsel: The Government Pleader for Services countered by referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others . This judgment highlights that departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct with different purposes, standards of proof, and approaches. The respondent argued that there is no bar to proceeding with both simultaneously.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Subba Reddy Satti , after considering both arguments and examining the case materials, noted a crucial point:

> "As seen from the material available on record, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in C.C.No.7 of 2024. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure – III and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet in C.C.No.7 of 2024 are mostly similar. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, and if the petitioner divulges his defense and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner."

The Court recognized the potential for prejudice to the petitioner if compelled to disclose his defense in the departmental inquiry while facing a criminal trial on the same allegations. Referencing the Supreme Court's direction in State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr for expeditious disposal of criminal trials, the High Court opted to balance the need for swift departmental action with the protection of the petitioner's rights.

Final Order:

The High Court ordered a stay on the departmental proceedings for one year. It directed the III Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, to expedite the criminal trial, preferably completing it within one year. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the criminal trial's expeditious disposal.

> "Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned III Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner also shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the criminal case."

The Court clarified that if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the criminal trial, the disciplinary authority is at liberty to resume departmental proceedings, as per guideline (v) in the Captain Paul Anthony case. The Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage with no order as to costs.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's concern for ensuring fair trial rights while addressing allegations of misconduct in public service, particularly when criminal and departmental proceedings are intertwined.