Departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously; however, if based on identical facts, the departmental proceedings may be stayed to prevent prejudice.

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present Writ petition is filed for following relief:

“….issue an order or a direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent in initiating the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in C.No.4552/A6/PR/2024, dated 19.02. 2025 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional when the subject matter, statements and witnesses of the said departmental enquiry and the subject matter, statements and witnesses of the criminal case in C.C.No.672 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ananthapuramu are one and the same, and in mentioning the wrong name of the alleged victim and the accused number in Annexure-I Statement of Articles of Charge and consequently to quash the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in C.No.4552/A6/PR/2024 dated 19.02.2025 and to pass…”

2. Heard Sri S.Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. A charge memo vide proceedings No.C.No.4552/A6/PR/2024, dated 19.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner. As per the statement of article of charge, the petitioner has indulged in outraging of modesty by abusing his elder brother’s daughter, for which, a Crime No.51 of 2024 was registered on the file of Ananthapuramu II Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 354 read with 34 of IPC which was in violation of Rule 3 Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules , 1964. The petitioner is already subjected to Criminal prosecution in C.C.No.672 of 2024 on the file of learned First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, in which charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 323 , 354 read with 34 of IPC and he is arrayed as accused No.1.

3. The learned Trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences mentioned above and summons are issued to the accused.

4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-III and the list of witnesses filed along with the charge sheet are mostly similar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the authorities proceed with the departmental inquiry and the petitioner divulges defence, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent authorities are proceeding with the departmental inquiry.

6. In Capt. Paul Anthony vs. Bharath Gold Mines Limited and Another , [1999 (3) SCC 679] wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 22 observed as follows;

“22. 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 law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of