The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. J. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Discipliniry Authority-cum- Principal District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District. L.B. Nagar. The Enquiry Officer cum ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent initiating departmental proceedings order number 48B4lAdmnlzO24 daled 2010912024 even before conclusion of the Trial in Crime No. 06/RCT-RRR/2023 dt.09-10- 2023, belore the I Addl. Special Judge for SPE and ACB at Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violation of Article 2'l of Constitution of lndia lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15i cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High cou rt may be pleased to direcl the 2nd and 3rd Respondent to stay the Departmental Enquiry vide proceedings order number 4BB4lAdmnl2024 dated 2ologl2cJ24 tiil the finalization of the criminal case crrme No.06/RCT-RRR/2023 dt.09-10-2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Court 1 Addl. Special Judge for SpE and ACB cases Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. B. SHIVA KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. M. SHALINI, Gp FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: STANDING COUNSEL FOR HIGHCOURT The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I t I I I t I I ! I I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AI\D THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO W.P.No.1833 OF 2025 OIiDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M.Shalini, learned Govemment Pleader for Services II for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The leamed counsel for the petitioner has strongly banked upon the fact that the petitioner is already prosecuted by the Anti Comrption Bureau vide Crime No.06/RCT-RRR/2023 dated

09.10.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 7,A of the Prevention of Comrption Act, 1988. The leamed counsel further submits that the number of witnesses cited i.e., L.Ws,1 , 2., 11, & 12 by the disciplinary authority also reflects that there are certain common witnesses to be examined both in the criminal case as also in the departmental enquiry which will have adverse prejudicial interest so far as the criminal case is concerned 2 .:1

4. Taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Corrrt in the case of M-Paul Anthony vs. Bharal Gold Mines Ltd., ontl Anothert, we are of the considered opinion that in the light of the judicial precedent rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the recent past, departmental enquiries cannot be stalled only on the ground of the delinquent being prosecuted in criminal case for the same act. Nonetheless, the Hon'ble Supr,:me Court has in very categorical terms held that the witnesses who are common both in crirlrinal case as also in disciplinary proceedings, the examination of witnesses can be deferred till their evidence is recorded in the criminal case.

5. The S r-rpreme Court in the case of Avinush Sadushiv Bhosule (Dead) Through IRs ys. Union of India und others reported in (20f2) f3 SCC l42has held as under:- "54. This Court recently reiterated the legal principle that departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal lrial in Kamataka SRfC v. M.G.Vittal Rao l(2O111)1 SCC 442. (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 1711. ln this case, making reference to almost all the previous 'lrooe;: scc 679 3 precedents, this Court has reiterated the legal position as follows:

54.1 There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. 54.2 The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal c€lse may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.

54.3 Such defence ought not to be permifted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the d iscip I ina ry p roceed in gs. 54.4 Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common.

54.5 ln our opinion, the principles culled out by this Court would be a complete answer to all the submissions made by Mr Jain."

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Slanzen Toyoletsu India Private Limiled Vs. Girish vs. and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 has held as under:- ,,16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likety to prejudice their defence before the criminal court". 4

7. 1'he Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. Neelam Nag and another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 has held as under:- "lt is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. However, no straltjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case-to-case basis".

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad ys. CISF, reported in (20f9) 7 SCC 797, has rr:iterated the aforesaid again

9. The leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that L.Ws. 1, 2 I I and 12 are found to be common witnesses both ir-r the criminal case as also in the departmental enquiry.

10. In vieu, of the saine, we dispose of the present writ petition with an observation and direction that let the disciplinary proceedings qo on. However, the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses L.Ws. 1,2, l1 and 12 and any other common witnesses who will be examined in the criminal case shall not be examined in the deparlmental enquiry till it is concluded. 5 1 I . The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// sD/ A - A. SRINIVASA REDDY SSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. 2. J.

4. 6 7 r h e P ri n ci pa I s ee re|1ry. lffi "Jr*i:i b :;iJil?L'! J;i; I 5iE!11 t, n, The DisciPlinary Authonty-c Tf,SE ?f$"3-t',"B"; ),?,fl''! ooa' District and sessions Judge' Ranga Reddv B':X'3b\f J-i9Bl .*'uo KUMAR, Advocate t9.P-u.91 for thA state of relangana at iwo ccs to GP FoR srnili6Es'ii 'uigh 8ll'St?i l?KtrNG couNSEL FoR rHE HrcHCouRr state or Telangana [OPUC] Two CD CoPies B t\.,'l GJP -C""t " i .CE ST4r e ) t, ?, 11 t'lAR 2Sl5 *- "q1I z o -;',/ f i;'' HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER WP.No.1833 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS