IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 206 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/07/2008 in WP No : 26611 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Manda Kanakaiah S/o. Gowraiah Companay Ltd., Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep. by its General Manager, RG-3 Area, SCCL, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. 2 The Superintendent of Mines (Operation) RG, OCP-II, Singareni Collieries CompanyLtd., Godavarikhani,KarimnagarDistrict. 3 The Enquiry Officer and Dy. Personnel Manager, RG, OCP-II, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.VENKATARAGHU RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.206 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.26611 of 2007 on 22.07.2008. Appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the departmental enquiry in connection with charge sheet No.RG3/OC2/R/007/3232 dated 22-11-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent during the pendency of criminal trial in connection with Crime No.121 of 2007 dated 15-11-2007 on the file of PS Kamanpur, is completed. The learned single Judge having observed that the scope of the criminal case is, however, different from the one, in the departmental proceedings and the petitioner has to answer several allegations, such as, not being careful in discharging the duties, not taking note of the precautions that are prescribed under the relevant provisions of law, etc., and even in cases, where an employee is acquitted of the offence of this nature, the departmental proceedings do not get absolved, dismissed the writ petition while further observing that the observations made by this Court shall not be treated as final, either in the departmental proceedings, or in the criminal case. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents are not entitled to proceed with the departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending before the competent Court. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the scope of the departmental proceedings is totally different from that of the criminal case and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge, needs no interference by this Court. As a matter of fact, the nature of the departmental proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings, is quite different and they have to be conducted in its own motion. In this view of the matter, pendency of the criminal proceedings cannot be an impediment for conducting the departmental proceedings as rightly observed by the learned single judge. In this background of the matter, We feel that the learned single Judge is justified in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner and hence, this writ appeal is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 30th March, 2009. Dvs/Gurc HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.No.206 OF 2009 Dated 30th March, 2009.