IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
K. Syam Kumar, S/o. Thammayya - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.3590 Of 2024
Decided On : 29-07-2024
Stay - Departmental Proceedings - IPC Sections, NDPS Act - The court emphasized the need to stay departmental proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal trial when both are based on the same facts, to prevent prejudice to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, faced departmental proceedings for alleged misconduct related to a theft case involving narcotics. He contended that the proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of a related criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that proceeding with departmental inquiries while a criminal case was ongoing could prejudice the petitioner, as the same witnesses and evidence were involved in both cases.
Issues: Whether departmental proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of a criminal trial based on the same facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on established legal principles that departmental and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously, but if they involve the same facts and the charges are grave, staying the departmental proceedings is warranted.
Result: The court ordered the stay of departmental proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal trial.
ORDER :
(Subba Reddy Satti, J.) :
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… to pass a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating departmental proceedings vide the proceedings in C.No.1/Major-PR/A6/2023, dated 01-09-2023 of Office of the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli District, along with consequential proceedings in even number dated 13-11-2023 appointing Inquiring Authority and presenting officer is arbitrary highhanded and illegal consequently direct the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance pending disposal of the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.1/2023 of K. Kotapadu PS, Anakapalli District, in the interest of justice and pass such other or further order or orders …”
2. The averments in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that while the petitioner was working as HC1580 in Kotapadu Police Station, Anakapalli District, a report was lodged on 03.01.2023, by one S. Paidiraju HC-1002, Writer in the said police station, to the Sub- Inspector of Police, K. Kotapadu Police Station, alleging that an unknown person entered into case property room by break opening the window of the police station from outside and committed theft of 7 bags of Ganja, weighing 200 Kgs. Based upon the report, a case in crime No.1 of 2023 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). On 05.01.2023, on receipt of reliable information about the accused, the Inspector of Police while proceeding towards A. Koduru, found two persons, who tried to escape. Police apprehended them and on being questioned they revealed their names as Setti Sandeep Kumar and Vijay Kumar Malibabu. Based on the confession, the petitioner was arrested on 05.01.2023.
b) The petitioner was suspended from service vide D.O.No.15/2023 and C.No.01/Major – PR/A6/2023 dated 09.01.2023. Before contemplating disciplinary proceedings, the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Kothakota Circle, Anakapalli District. A charge memo dated 01.09.2023, was issued to the petitioner, and the same was received on 23.10.2023. The 2nd Respondent did not deliver copies of the documents mentioned in the Memo and the statements of the witnesses. However, the petitioner submitted a written statement on 01.11.2023, denying the allegations.
c) Initially, FIR was registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 380 of IPC, and subsequently Section 120(b) of IPC and Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) were added. After registration of crime No.1 of 2023, when the petitioner was produced before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram for remand, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to issue remand on the ground that the provisions of NDPS would not be attracted against him. Therefore, the Police altered the Form, showing Sections 120(b), 457 and 380 of IPC against the petitioner. Thereafter, a remand was issued. The petitioner was enlarged on bail and his suspension was revoked on 16.11.2023. Thereafter, on 29.11.2023, the petitioner was posted to Ananthagiri Police Station. By proceedings, dated 13.11.2023, respondent No.3 was appointed as Inquiry Authority.
d) Pending the criminal case based on the same set of facts and evidence, departmental Inquiry, cannot be proceeded further. If the petitioner discloses his defense with documentary evidence in the departmental Inquiry, it will cause great hardship and irreparable loss. Hence, the writ petition.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is not disputed regarding GSEs and cash rewards awarded to the petitioner, during service. Respondent No.2 pleaded about registration of crime, submission of a special report by Sub- In
A. Ravinder v. Managing Director, Food Corporation of India
M. Koteswara Rao v. Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, SDSC, SHAR, Sriharikota, Sullurpet Mandal
A. Peddanna v. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force
AI
Departmental proceedings should be stayed if they are based on the same facts as a pending criminal trial to avoid prejudice to the accused.
The standard of proof in criminal cases and departmental proceedings is different, and departmental proceedings cannot wait for the disposal of the criminal case if the allegations are different.
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,....
Departmental proceedings can continue alongside criminal trials unless complicated legal questions arise; mere overlap of facts does not warrant a stay.
The distinction between the nature of inquiry and investigation in departmental proceedings and criminal case, and the different standards of proof required in each.
In the disciplinary proceedings, the rule of the preponderance of probabilities is applied whereas, in the criminal proceeding, the principle of strict standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is ....
The Court held that the departmental enquiry should be stayed when the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal ca....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.