VEEREPALLI PAVAN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHA
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Summary
A structured summary for this judgment hasn’t been prepared yet. The full text is below.
Precedent status
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.
Original judgment text
1. G SRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.18871 of 2026 ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition filed questioning the action of Respondent-Authorities in initiating parallel disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide Eoffice.No.997486/2026Pts.7, dated
03.06.2026, pending Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB-VJA/2024 on the file of the SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, as arbitrary and illegal.
2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under:- The petitioner was initially appointed as MPHA on 23.10.1999 and was promoted as Sanitary Inspector in the year-2005. At present the Petitioner is working as Sanitary Inspector in Gudlavalleru Gram Panchayat of Gudlavalleru Mandal. It is submitted that, during the year-2024, while he was working as Sanitary Inspector in Avanigadda Gram Panchayat, he was placed under suspension by the Respondent No.3 vide proceedings in Roc.No.74/2024Pts.3, dated 07.03.2024 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- from one Akula Sai Krishna on 20.02.2024 to issue license to the said person for running a mobile tiffin cart in Avanigadda. 4
3. Parallelly, Police Department has proceeded with investigation and filed a charge sheet which was numbered as C.C.No.02 of 2026 on the file of the SPE & ACB Cases-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the criminal case and the disciplinary case are with respect to the same incident and it will cause prejudice to the Petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited1.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that there is no bar to proceed with the enquiry simultaneously and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others2.
5. Reasoning:- The departmental proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner based on his involvement in Cr.No.3/RCT-ACB- VJA/2024. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexures and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are almost similar. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others v. Neelam Nag and another3, balancing the interest of department for expeditious