Common Order:

Both these writ petitions can be conveniently dealt with together and decided as they arise out of common set of facts and also raise common questions of law.

2. The writ petitioner in W.P. No.11193 of 2009 has been functioning as the Inspector while the petitioner in W.P. No.11223 of 2009 has been functioning as a constable, attached to the Railway Protection Force. It is stated that the petitioners while working at Nellore have received a message that one S.Dasaradha Ramaiah was responsible for causing a railway accident at Venkateswarapuram at K.M. No.176/14 between Nellore - Padugupadu railway stations, as the said Sri S.Dasaradha Ramaiah left on the railway track his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP26 TR 5815 while trying to cross the railway lines. The petitioner in W.P. No.11193 of 2009 being Inspector, directed the Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force by name Sri K.Ramana Kumar to proceed to the accident spot and to take action as per law. Accordingly, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Nellore registered a crime under Section 154 of the Railways Act, 1989 and took up the matter for further investigation. The Assistant Sub-Inspector appears to have arrested the accused Sri S.Dasaradh Ramaiah at about 04-00 p.m. on 11-01-2009. The apprehended accused has been sent to the court of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways at Nellore on 12-01-2009 informing the court about the arrest of the accused. It is alleged that the said Sri S.Dasaradha Ramaiah with a view to escape from the criminal liability has sent up a false complaint to the C.B.I. as if the petitioner in W.P. No.11193 of 2009 has demanded illegal gratification for releasing him from the crime. Based upon such a complaint, the C.B.I., Visakhapatnam registered a crime in R.C. No.4(A)/2009. The C.B.I. has registered a case and laid a trap against the petitioner in W.P. No.11193 of 2009. But, they have trapped the other petitioner in W.P. No.11223 of 2009 while he was found accepting a sum of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousands five hundred only) in pursuance of the crime registered and the trap organized. Both the petitioners were arrested and they were produced before the Special Judge for A.C.B. and C.B.I. cases who have enlarged them on bail later on. Based upon the said information received by the Railway Protection Force, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner the 1st respondent herein has initiated disciplinary proceedings through the impugned Memorandum dated 06-04-2009 against the writ petitioners. Identical nature of charges and imputations have been made against both the petitioners, the validity of these proceedings dated 06-04-2009 of the first respondent/Senior Divisional Security Commissioner is challenged in these two writ petitions.

3. I have heard Sri J.M. Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Krishnam Raju, Learned counsel for the respondents and with his consent the matters are taken up for disposal. This is a case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners are facing a criminal case on the very same nature of allegations and simultaneously subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Now, even before the criminal court has taken up the matter for further consideration, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, which is illegal. The learned counsel further submits that the very same material constituted the background for registration of a crime against both the petitioners by the C.B.I. and has also been made the background for the present disciplinary action. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings are sought to be pursued simultaneously along with the criminal case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such a course of action would cause irreparable damage to the right of liberty of the petitioners, and it would greatly prejudice their cause in the criminal case. If the pe