Point of Law: Police Standing Order, which is a special rule, which deals with the power of the authorities to postpone the decision on the departmental inquiry till pronouncement of judgment in the criminal case, will prevail over the general rule.

ORDER :

1.This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inquiry report in C.No.01/OE/DIG-VR-VSP/2020 dt. .10.2020 and consequential show cause notice in Rc.No.302/O2/2017 dt.11.11.2020 of the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to law and also contrary to P.O.150 of APPM and further direct the not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the Charge Memo in Rc.No.302/02/2017 dt.04.10.2019 till the judgment is pronounced in Criminal case crime No.123/2017 and Crime No.668/2017 on the file of Gajuwaka PS as per P.O.150 of A.P.P.M”.

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 16.01.1989, and promoted as Inspector of Police in February, 1999, further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in February, 2009 and posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam, he worked there from 09.11.2014 to 17.05.2016, later he was deputed to APSRTC as Vigilance and Security Officer, Vijayanagaram Zone, Visakhapatnam.

3. While the matter stood thus, one Smt.K.Kumari, W/o K.Satyanaraju, R/o Gajuwaka filed a complaint on 07.10.2017 stating that her husband K.Satyanaryana Raju left the house on 06.10.2017 at about 10.40 a.m. and he didn't turn-up and requested to find out about her husband, the same was registered as a case in Crime.No.123/2017 on the file of Newport Police Station, under the man missing. On the confession made by Gummadi Ravi (Accused No.3) and Suvvada Mahesh (Accused No.4), the petitioner was implicated as accused No.1 in the said Crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sri Bhupathiraju Srinivasaraju was shown as accused No.2 and he surrendered before Chodavaram Police Station on 19.10.2017, who handed over to New Port Police Station and remanded to judicial custody on 20.10.2017by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Viskhapatnam. Later, he was enlarged on regular bail on 12.01.2018. Later, basing on the radio massage dated 16.10.2017 of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 issued orders in Crime No.302/02/2017 dated 23.10.2017 placing the petitioner under suspension.

4. Preliminary enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 01.05.2019, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had illegal intimacy with K.Padmalatha and she insisted the petitioner to marry her and for that she approached higher authorities and the petitioner got murdered her by engaging one Gedela raju. Charge Memo in RC.No.302/02/2017 dated 04.10.2019 was issued under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC and A) Rules, 199l (for short “CCA Rules”). The petitioner submitted explanation within the time and denied the charge. The basis for the issuance of Charge for departmental enquiry is the F.I.R in Crime Number No.123 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and F.I.R. in Crime.No.668/2017 under Section 120(B), 302, 201, 417, 497, 506, 500 of I.P.C. and Section (l) (XII) of SC and ST (POA) Act, Gajuwaka Police Station. The charge is not relating to discharge of official duty.

5. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the evidence and witnesses in both the proceedings are one and the same and requested to postpone the departmental enquiry till the judgment is pronounced by the Criminal Court. The petitioner filed Writ petition No.15021 of 2020 questioning the parallel enquiry.

6. It is specifically contended that when the said case was pending, the inquiry was completed and submitted preliminary enquiry report hurriedly without considering the request of the petitioner by the inquiry officer. It is contended that charge is Cryptic and vague based on surmises and conjectures, and such