IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16863 of 2008 Between: C.Brahman S/o.Late C.Balaiah, Division Nampally,R/o.H.No.1- 9-277/31/A/2 Lalithanagar, Ramnagar Hyderabad. …PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Co- Operative Society Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Co- Oparative Society Ltd (APCO) Rep.by its Chairman Central Office, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondent authorities in proceedings with the departmental enquiry the pendency of the criminal proceedings as illegal and consequently to defer the disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16863 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Assistant Purchase Oﬃcer in the ﬁrst respondent-Society. He was issued a charge sheet dated 13.10.2006 alleging that the Degree Certiﬁcate produced by him, as proof of his educational qualiﬁcations, is a forged one. Simultaneously, a complaint was submitted to the police and accordingly, FIR was also registered. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently, released on bail on 27.11.2006. Now, the petitioner is facing the disciplinary proceedings as well as a case in a Criminal Court. The petitioner states that the charge in the Criminal Court as well as the disciplinary proceedings is one and the same and if the respondents are permitted to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, he would be required to divulge his defence. He contends that such would prejudice his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the standard of proof required in a Criminal Case is of a higher degree than that in the disciplinary proceedings. However, if the purport of the charges in the disciplinary proceedings in the same as those in the Criminal Case, it constitutes a basis to stall the disciplinary proceedings, lest the employee is compelled to divulge his defence. In the instant case, the charge against the petitioner in a Criminal Case is about forgery of Degree Certiﬁcate. In the departmental proceedings, no other charge was framed except the one relating allegation of forgery is framed. If the petitioner is required to divulge his defence in the disciplinary proceedings, it will have its own impact on the Criminal Case. The prosecution may frame its case, keeping the explanation that is oﬀered by the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, in view. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pathrella v. Oriental Bank of Commerce[1]. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that disciplinary proceedings against the employee reached almost the final stage and they were sought to be interfered on the ground that the Criminal Case is pending. The Supreme Court found fault with the judgment of the High Court. Such is not the case here. Further, it is not as if the charge sheet dated 13.10.2006 would become untenable on any ground. The maximum that can happen is that the enquiry into the charges in the departmental proceedings stand deferred, till the conclusion of the Criminal case. Even if the petitioner is acquitted in the Criminal Case, it would not draw curtain on the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents would be entitled to proceed against the petitioner, even if he is acquitted. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall defer the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, till the Criminal Case ﬁled against him is disposed of. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 5th August 2008 Note: CC one week B/O RRB [1] (2006) 10 SCC 572