A. VIDYA SAGAR v. The Director General of Police

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the .1, :. .i- _:.._. .. .r. ] circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for records relating to the present impugned orders issued in charge memo in CNo.215to2t2010-3, dated 3.5.2011 of the 1st respordent and :-.. : quash or set aside the same by holding the entire action of the 1st respondent in proceeding by initiating departmental action against the applicant for the same issue which is pending before the Hon'ble court of the Addl. lst class Magsitrate at Karimnagar in PRC No. 13/2014, arisen in Cr. No. 3712010 dated 2.4.2010, as highly iltegal, arbitrary, unjust improper and contrary to various judicial pronouncements including contrary to the provision of AP Police standing orders in the subject matter and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed with departmental enquiry in pursuance of present impugned charge memo issued in C.Uo. Z'tStOZtZ0l0-3, dated 3.5.2011 of the 1st respondent, till conclusion of the criminal proceedings, in view of the issue inrolved in both proceedings is one Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ARVTND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondents: Govemment Pleader for Se " The Court made the following: ORDER .ices (Home) 1 .' . .*rE: *+a54r!r4!!+i : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE PULLA T{ARTHIK qIRIT PETITIoNtTRI N0.3541 of 2OL7 ORI}ER This Writ Petition (TR) is fited seeking to set aside the charge memo in C.No.2lS /O2 /2OlO-3 dated 03.05.2011 and to direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry, in pursuance of the said Charge Memo, till the conclusion of criminal proceedings in PRC.No.13 /2oL4 pending on the Iile of the Additional I Class Ma gr strate at Karimnagar. 2 Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government pleader for Services (Home), behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Inspector o[ police (Tratfic), Godavarikhani, he had registered a criminal case in Crime No.25/201O dated 10.02.2010, under Section 3O4 of the India, penal Code, on account ot the demise of one Earragondla Rarnesh, policc Constable, io a road accident on O9.O2.2OLO, and-sent the body for postmortem examination, conducted Panchanama and also sent the blood stains of the deceased to the FSL. Thereafter, at the instructions of the Superintendent of police, \ ) PK, J w ) (TR)No.3541 of 2017 Karimnagar, the petitionel handed over the invel;t igation to the Inspector of Police, Huzurabad, which was later har < cd over to the Crime Investigation Dcp-artment (CIDi. While'*re,things stood thus, the Police, Goda-r'avarikhani II Town, had registered a :ase in Crime No.37l2010 dated 02.04.2010, under Section 3O2 of i rc Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, for the very sair e incident, and implicated thc petitioner herein as Accused No.3, alle11 ng that he had discharged his duties in registering Crimc IJo.25/2O lC , in an unlarvful manner. Thereafter, a charge sheet was frled thc;r in, which was numbered as PRC.No.13 of 2O14, on the fi.le of the Ac Citional I Class Magistrate at Karimnagar. It is fufther submitted th. was issucd with a Charge i\{emo in C.I.Io.27S /02 03.O5.20I I by respondent No.1, allcging that he hac t the petitioner /2O10-3 dated exhibited grave misconduct in registering the crime as an accident ini ead of a brutal murder, in connivance with the Deputy Superintende r t of Police and also the accused, and proposcd to conduct a depal1 nental enquiry against the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the issue involved n the criminal proceeding and thc departmental proceedings are on,) and the same, and the imputation of charges and list of witnesses are z lso one and the same. As such, if the parallel proceeding are allo.n:d to continue l I 3 PK, J w. P. (TR)No. 354 1 of 2O 1 7 against the petitioner, his defense in the departmental proceedings would be disclosed, which will cause a lot of prejudice before tlre competent trial Court, and therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry in pursuance o[ the Charge Memo dated

03.05.201 1, till ttre conclusion of criminal proceedings.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has exhibited grave misconduct and neglect of duty in registering the brutal murder case of the deceased Police Constable, which was established during the investigation by the CID. As such, he was rightly implicated in thc criminal case in PRC.No.13 of 2Ol4 as Accused No.3, for misguiding the family members of the deceased, conniving with the accused, and investigating the case in the most perfunctory manner, despite being futly arvare that the deceased was murdered by Accused No. 1. Thereafter, since the allegations.rre very serious and grave, the petitioner was issued with the present Charge Memo dated 03.O5.2O I 1, proposing to conduct a departmental enquiry. It is submitted that though the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings have arisen out of the very same incident, they are dilferent, and as per thc orders in the police Manual, an oral enquiry can be conducted, while the criminal case is in 4 ' w D.(tR)No.3541 of 2Ot7 progress. Hence, thc pctitioner is not entifled for any r:lief. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learnu counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on rec( rd, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the departmental procccrl ngs vide Charge Memo dated 03.OS.2O I 1 and the crimina-l proceedings n pRC.No. 13 of 2014 (Crime No.37 of 2010 dated O2.O4-2O LOl, are bas:d on the same set of facts and circumstances, i.e., the criminal caee ; ertaining to the demise o[ one Late Earragondla Ramgsh, police Conskrl ,le. The law, in this regard, is wcll settled. Although conductil,; departmental proccedings and criminal procccdings, .simultaneously is not per se illegal, u'hen such proceedings arise out of the same ret of facts and circumstances; charges against the dclinquent offic:. are grave in nature; and if his defense could be prejudiced, it is des r able to stay the departmcntal proceedings t r the fi1ariza1i6n o the criminal proceedings. This position has becn re_alfrrmed by tr : Honble Apex court in capt- M. Paut Anthong u. Brun,,t Gord )y tnes Ltd. and. anotherl. r (1999) 3 SCC 679 5 PK, J W. P.(TR)No. 354 1 of 201Z 7 In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to make the rnterim order dated 09.04.2015 absolute, and it is herebv made absolute

8. Accordingly, the Writ petition (TR) is disposed directing the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry in pursuance of the charge Memo in c.No.2rs/02/2010-3 dated 03.0s.20r1 issued by respondent No. l, till the conclusion of criminal proceedings in PRC.No.13/2O14, before the Additional I Class Magistrate at Karimnagar (arising out of Crime No.3Z /2OLO dared 02.O4.2010, on the hle of the Godaravarikhani II Tovtm police Station). Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ petition (TR), shall stand closed. No costs. SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR zl--./ SECTION OFFICER /,TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakidi:ka-pool, Hyderabad. 500004

2. The Superintendent of Police, Khammam,, Khammam District 507001 3.ThePrincipalsecretary,Home,Department,SecretariatBuildings,TheState of Telangana, HYderabad-SO0 022.

4. One CC to SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR^SERVICES (HOME)' High - CourtioiinJState of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

6. Two CD CoPies PVL TKS dl- t HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 ,; i I ''<. ', t ''d ltll6 ".1,<,,,'\{r. ?2 {t ORDER WP(TR).No.3541 of 2O17 D|SPOSING OF THE WRIT PET{T{ON{TIl), ,,. WTHOUT COSTS ',c\2'\2['