THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR DATED: 23-11-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 27163 OF 2010 Between: D. Veerachari ..... APPELLANT AND The Inspector General of Police, A.P.S.P Battalions, Hyderabad and three others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 27163 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar) Heard Sri M. Viswanadham, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The petitioner is a police constable of the Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalion. On a charge of manhandling the wife of his colleague, the petitioner was subjected to departmental action and ultimately, he was visited with the punishment of postponement of one increment by the appellate authority which was confirmed by revisional authority i.e., first respondent. It should also be noted here that correspondingly a criminal case was also filed against the petitioner and that ended in acquittal but a copy of that judgment is not placed before us. The petitioner filed a O.A before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the order of the first respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A at the admission stage finding that there are no merits in it. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon two grounds questioning the order of the Tribunal. The first is that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity in the departmental enquiry conducted against him and, therefore, that itself is a ground for setting aside the departmental proceedings. Secondly, he contended that acquittal in criminal case is itself a ground to drop the departmental action and, therefore, no action should have been taken against him. The Tribunal rejected both these grounds and gave its own reasoning. We do not see any reason to disagree with the view of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage sought further time to produce a decision to show that both departmental action and the criminal case should be considered together and that if the criminal case ends in acquittal, the departmental action should be dropped. We find no reason to grant time. On the other hand the normal rule that proceedings in a criminal case are different from the proceedings in a departmental enquiry and each can stand on its own footing independently applies here. This rule is applicable to only those cases where departmental action and criminal case are based on identical facts. The case on hand shows that the said rule is not applicable here. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the alleged misconduct of the petitioner does not relate to his official duty and, therefore, action should not have been taken especially when the criminal case ended in acquittal. There is no force in this contention also. It is well settled that departmental action can be initiated even in respect f a misconduct which does not relate to discharge of official duties. In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in limini. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 23-11-2010 ks