IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1515 of 2008 Between: S.Yellaiah (E.675875) S/o.Rajaiah A.P.S.R.T.C. Bodhan, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. 2 The Enquiry Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C. O/o. Regional Manager, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i. declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with departmental enquiry in connection with charge sheet No. 03/1(52)/2007-BDN dt. 29.12.2007 during the pendency of Criminal Trial in Crime No. 379 r/w 109 of 2007 on the file of PS Bodhan as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same. ii. consequently direct the respondents to defer the departmental enquiry initiated in pursuance of charge sheet No. 03/1(52)/2007- BDN dt. 29.12.2007 till the trial in connection with Crime No. 379 r/w 109 of 2007 on the file of PS Bodhan is completed. iii. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B. G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and at their request, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to defer the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner till the trial in the criminal case pending against him is completed on the ground that on the same set of charges the criminal case is pending. It is the case of the petitioner that he was charge sheeted by the police in Crime No. 474 of 2007 for the offence under section 379 read with Section 109 IPC on the allegation that he is involved in theft of a motor cycle. After filing of the charge sheet on 29-12-2007 in the criminal case, he made a request to the 1st respondent – Depot Manager not to proceed further in the departmental proceedings on the ground that if he reveals his defence before the departmental enquiry, it will prejudice his interests in the criminal case and it also affects the criminal case, but, the same was rejected. Hence, the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage driver on 13-05-1998 and thereafter, his services were regularized in the year 2005. It is also stated that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in regard to theft of a motor cycle and in that connection a criminal case was registered against him. According to the respondents, the criminal case is connected with the theft only, but the departmental proceedings also include charges for unauthorized absence and for concealing the fact of his arrest by the police in connection with the theft case and, therefore, the charges in the criminal case are entirely different from those of departmental proceedings. Further, there is no bar to conduct the departmental proceedings simultaneously when the criminal case is pending. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and others[1] staying the disciplinary proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial cannot be a matter of course. In support of the above contentions, learned Standing Counsel relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in B. Ramesh Babu v. Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police[2]. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by both the counsel, I have perused the material available on record. It is well settled that during the pendency of the criminal case, department proceedings need not be stayed. In the proceedings before the departmental enquiry, proof of evidence and the procedure is entirely different than that of the criminal trial. The gravity of offence, appreciation of evidence and benefit of doubt before the criminal Court cannot be equated to that of departmental enquiry. Further, on the facts of this case, the charges in the departmental proceedings are not directly concerned with the charges in the criminal case. It is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight- jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. In B.K. Meena’s case, the Supreme Court held as under: “The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings, is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed.” In view of the above, I see no reason to direct the respondents to defer the departmental enquiry till the trial in the criminal case is concluded, as prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. N.V. RAMANA, J 01-12-2008 ks/msv [1] 1996 (6) SCC 417 [2] 2008 LAB I.C. 2239