APHC010054822020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3549]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 3291 OF 2020 Between:

1. T HE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH SPECIAL PROTECTION FORCE, ARANDAL PET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PETITIONER/ 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.777/2019 ...PETITIONER AND

1. R ADINARAYANA, S/O. JAGANNADHAM, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC.

SUB-INSPECTOR, APSPF, 0/O. COMMANDANT APSPF, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

2. M SANKARA RAO, ENQUIRY OFFIER, COMMANDANT HQ'S, APSPF TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K SUDHAKAR REDDY Date on which Judgment reserved : 07.10.2025 Date on which the Judgment pronounced : 16.12.2025 Date on which the Judgment uploaded : 17.12.2025 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per NJS,J)

Assailing the order of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 16.05.2019 in O.A.No.777 of 2019, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2) The learned Tribunal through the impugned Order directed the respondents in O.A. not to proceed against the applicant pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 31.01.2017 until finalization of the Criminal Case. The

1^st respondent herein is the applicant in the said O.A.

3) Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.R.S.Manidhar Pingali, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent / applicant.

4) The 1^st respondent / applicant filed the above said O.A. seeking to set aside the departmental proceedings initiated by the petitioner herein vide Memorandum dated 31.01.2017 based on the same set of facts and evidence in respect of the FIR No.135 of 2016 for the offences under Section 376, 417, 420 and 506 of IPC, pending against the 1^st respondent / applicant before the Hon’ble XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.

5) The learned Tribunal while noting that the allegations as seen from the FIR and the Charge Memo are one and the same, arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances and by referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Another, (1999) SCC (L&S) 810and G.M.Tank Vs State of Gujarat and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446 passed the order impugned in the Writ Petition.

6) Assailing the Order of the Tribunal, learned Assistant Government Pleader inter alia contends that the Tribunal went wrong in staying the Departmental proceedings ignoring the legal position that the Departmental proceedings and the criminal case can be proceeded simultaneously. He submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal runs contrary to the guidelines in Paul Anthony’s case and that in fact the learned Tribunal mis-applied the decision in G.M.Tank’s case to the present case. He submits that a charge memo was issued to the 1^st respondent / applicant long back and though the offences alleged against the 1^st respondent / applicant are grave in nature, mere pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for staying / delay in Departmental proceedings. He further submits that if the respondent No.1 / applicant comes out clean in the Departmental Proceedings, he can discharge his duties with honour or otherwise purported action would be initiated.

Learned counsel also placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Others Vs Sarvesh Berry ii) Indian overseas bank, Annasalai and Another Vs P.Ganesan and Others iii) State Bank of India and Others Vs Neelam Nag and Another iv) State Bank of India and Others Vs P. Zadenga

3 (2005) 10 SCC 471

4 (2008) 1 SCC 650

5 (2016) 9 SCC 491

v) R.Subba Rao Vs Chief Vigilance Officer

7) Learned Assistant Government Pleader also submits