ORDER :

D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J

This Writ Appeal No.526 of 2022 is filed against the order, dated 01.04.2021, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.23315 of 2020.

2. Writ Appeal No.527 is filed against the dismissal of the Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.23315 of 2020.

3. Since the main issues were raised and argued in W.A.No.526 of 2022 the same was taken up for hearing.

4. This Court has heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the learned Government Pleader of Services-I for the appellant, and Sri G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The respondent-Writ Petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was placed under suspension because he is accused in two heinous crimes.

6. Learned Special Government Pleader argues that as a person of the disciplined Uniform Force the respondent-Writ Petitioner was involved in two heinous crimes viz., Crime No.123 of 2017 of New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam and Crime No.668 of 2017 of Gajuwaka Police Station, Visakhapatnam. It is pointed out that the offences for which the respondent-Writ Petitioner is charged are under Sections 302, 120b, 201, 417, 497, 506 and 500 IPC along with the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the respondent-writ petitioner, who was responsible police officer entered into an extra marital relationship with a lady; taking the assistance a known rowdy sheeter trouble maker the lady was killed. Thereafter another conspiracy was hatched to kill the “known rowdy sheeter” with the assistance of another person. He is also accused of paying money to the hired killers. Basing on these offences, learned Special Government Pleader submits that two crimes were registered against the respondent-writ petitioner. It is submitted that apart from the registration of the crimes, Departmental proceedings were also initiated after following due process and the enquiry is completed and show cause notice was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner to submit his explanation to the proposed punishment. At that stage, learned Special Government Pleader submits that W.P.No.23315 of 2020 was filed. He points out that since the enquiry is almost completed, the pendency of the criminal cases need not be stayed. According to him, the criminal cases were delayed due to some technical reasons but the departmental enquiry proceeded. Learned Special Government Pleader points out that the respondent-Writ petitioner did not raise any issue of procedural irregularities etc., but has only argued on the merits of the matter. It is his contention that as substantial part of the enquiry is already completed, the final punishment is to be imposed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent-writ petitioner if enquiry is allowed to be finalised. He questions the manner in which learned single Judge granted stay of the enquiry. According to him, the learned single Judge took diametrically opposite stands on the enforceability of the Police Standing Orders in the Writ order and in the review order. In the leading case of M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 the following points were laid down and these were emphasised by the learned Special Government Pleader.

“The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and