THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Writ Petition No.12952 of 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY The instant Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents, viz., (i) to not proceed with departmental inquiry against the petitioner pursuant to charge- memo issued to the petitioner vide order No.CCC-HYD/AW/E2/DE- 04/24/4568/2024, dated 09.09.2024, (for short, ‘the impugned memo’) since on the same set of facts, the criminal case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.10/RCT-CR-1/2024, dated 02.05.2024, on the file of P.S. A.C.B., City Range-I is pending against the petitioner; and (ii) to declare the action of respondents in not promoting the petitioner notionally as Grade-I Panchayath Secretary w.e.f. 19.01.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed by the respondents on compassionate ground on 01.08.2009. While in service, petitioner got periodical promotions and finally reached up to the stage of Field Assistant w.e.f. 07.11.2020. While working as Field Assistant, petitioner was implicated in a criminal case on the basis of which officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) registered a crime against the petitioner vide F.I.R. dated 08.04.2024. In the process, an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner.

4. It was alleged against the petitioner that, petitioner had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant, viz., Sri Mohd. Abdul Gaffor, for doing undue favour. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2024 and sent for judicial custody and later he was released on bail on 11.06.2024.

5. Basing on the above complaint, a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on 09.09.2024 and subsequently the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 06.05.2024. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said charge-memo denying the charges leveled against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had decided to proceed with departmental enquiry and an Inquiry Officer was appointed along with the Presenting Officer to present the case of prosecution before the Inquiry Officer. Along with the charge-memo, a list of documents and list of witnesses were also relied upon by the respondents to prove the charges framed against the petitioner.

6. The grievance of petitioner is that while the nature of allegations in the F.I.R. as also in the charge-memo being the same, to prove the case, most of the witnesses that are examined would be the same. The petitioner therefore contended that in the event of witnesses in the criminal case (who are also witnesses in the departmental enquiry) are examined earlier than their evidence before the criminal case is completed, it may have an adverse impact so far as the trial is concerned; and therefore, prayed for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the departmental enquiry till evidence in the criminal case is completed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that of late the stand of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been very clear that two proceedings, viz., disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial, can go simultaneously and that there is no hard and fast rule for staying the departmental enquiry till criminal case is decided.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636, whereby the Hon’ble Su