Diddi Laxminarayana v. The Engineer ln Chief

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio of lndia praying that in the e High Court may be ne in the nature of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particula Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.1 86 2 in conducting the departmental enquiry in pursuant to the impugned memorandum of articles and charges issued vide proceedings in memo No.Rc/ENC1H151921201212015 dated 5.8.2018 even in spite of the trial is not yet completed in the criminal case in C.C.No. 60712017 on the file of the Vl Additional Chief [Vletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents No.1 and 2 not to proceed with the departmental enquiry in pursuant to the memorandum of articles and charges issued by the 1st respondent in memo No. Rc/ENC/Hl51g2l2o12l2o15 dated 5.8.2018 till the trial is completed in the criminal - case in C.C.No 60712017 on the file of the Vl Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner initiated in pursuant to the proceedings in memo No. Rc/ENC/H151921201212015 dated 5.8.2018 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Between:

1. The Engineer ln Chief, lrrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

2. K.Veeraiah, Superintending Engineer (T and [/), Office of the Engineer-in- Chief (l CAD Departmeerit), Hyderabad.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDE NTS AND Diddi Laxmindrayana, S/o. Janardhan, aged 58 years, Occ Assistant Executive Engineer, IMetpally, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDE NTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interim order dt:28-01 -2019 in l.A.No.1 of 2019 in W P.No.1201 of 2019. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI LATTUPALLY ANAND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A IITRIT PETITION No.L2Ol of 2Ot9 ORDER: The petitioner, while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in sRSP stage-Il, warangal, was implicated in FIR No. 22/2O15 by CID, Hyderabad, under Section s 42O,468, artd 4Tl IPC for allegedly using a fake B.sc. (civil Engineering) degree from Magadh University for promotion. A criminal case (c.c.No. 607 of 2ol7l is pending trial. Meanwhile, a departmental enquiry on the same allegations was initiated. Despite informing both respondents that the criminal case is pending and trial has not commenced, and that conducting the departmental enquiry would prejudice the petitioner's defence, the enquiry is being pursued. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard sri Latupally Anand, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit stating that petitioner was promoted in 2009 based on a B.sc. (civil Engineering) degree from Magadh University, which was later found to be fake. Due to this, petitioner was suspended and \ \,, -- 3j' 2 NBK,J W.P. No.12O1 of 2019 - both criminal and departmental cases were started" The criminal case (CR No.22/2015) was filed against the petitioner. It is stated that the criminal case is aboutt forgery, while the departmental enquiry is about misconduct and breaking service rules. It is further stated that the respondents didn't get any official request to delay the enquiry and that the enquiry can go on even while the criminal case is still pending. Learned. counsel for petitioner filed reply affidavit stating

4. that the Executive Engineer had requested verification of the petitioner's d.egree from Magadh Universit5r in 2008, and the University confirmed its genuineness. Based on this, the petitioner was apfointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in 2OOg. Further, Government orders from 2ol2 to 2Ol4 recognized. his service and promotion. The University again confirmed the degree's authenticity in 2OL4. Despite this, the Department continues the departmental enquiry'

5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material on record, this court of the opinion that criminal case and departmental enquiry involve different proceedings, the former focuses on forgery, while the latter addresses misconduct related to service rules. It may be 3 NBK,J W.P. No.1201 of 2019 noted that the pendency of the criminal case does not automatically stay the departmental enquiry. Furthermore, no formal request to delay the enquiry has been submitted. Therefore, this court of the view that departmental enquiry may proceed independently and there is no merit in this writ petition and the s€une is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.V.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSbTANT REGISTRAR sEcn#oFFrcER To,

1. One CC to SRI LATTUPALLY ANAND, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMTM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies. BSK TKS H. I HIGH COURT DATED:01 10712025 ORDER WP.No.1201 of 2019 (, { t '( llE S I 1 il0u. ?u; i-: .n e -l DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ."SA G X.o,