HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27294 OF 2010 Between: Md.Rafi …. Petitioner and The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, and another …. Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27294 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a driver in the Zonal workshop, Kadapa. On 23.07.2008 he was driving a departmental goods transport vehicle bearing No. AAZ 4032. A charge sheet, dated 14.09.2010, was issued to him alleging that he committed theft of 35 litres of HSD oil from the diesel tank of the vehicle and that he was attempting to sell the stolen fuel. Through order, dated 14.09.2010, he was placed under suspension. On a complaint submitted to the Corporation, the Station House Officer, Marripadu police station registered Crime No.56 of 2010 under Sections 381 and 409 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the case is pending trial in the concerned court. The grievance of the petitioner is that in case he is required to submit explanation to the charge sheet, he was under obligation to disclose his defence in the criminal case. He accordingly seeks stay of departmental proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The charge framed against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner had stolen diesel oil from the departmental goods transport vehicle. Incidentally that is the allegation in the F.I.R. also. It is no doubt true that the charge sheet is yet to be filed in the criminal case. However, the charge is so identical in both the proceedings that the same witnesses have to be examined for proof of the same. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts said that it is not at all advisable to compel an employee to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings, which would have its impact upon the proceedings before the criminal court. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to defer the departmental proceedings against the petitioner till the disposal of the criminal case instituted against him. It is further directed that, in case, the charge framed against the petitioner emerges to be in any way at variance from the charge in the departmental proceedings, the respondents can require the petitioner to submit explanation and to proceed further in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 8th November 2010 lmv