IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8839 of 2009 Between: Subhash Yalla, S/o. Sri Y. Subba Rao, R/o. Flat No. 203, Sai Home Residency, Street No. 10, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND M/s. Vijaya Bank, Rep by its Chairman & Managing Dirctor, Head Office 41/2, Triniti Circle, M.G. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State & others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8839 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 25.03.2009 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner was called upon to file his explanation on the report submitted by the enquiry officer. Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that after completion of the departmental enquiry, a criminal compliant was lodged and passing of final order by the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings would prejudice the interest of the petitioner. He, therefore, requested for restraining the respondents from passing final order till completion of the disciplinary proceedings. I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel. Ordinarily, the employer has got discretion to proceed with departmental proceedings and take appropriate action therein against his employee. Only in cases where the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are founded on the same set of charges, it is desirable that the employer will not proceed with the departmental proceedings until completion of the criminal trial. The reason for this is that if the employer proceeds with the departmental proceedings, the employee will be forced to putforth his defence, which may prejudice his interest in the criminal trial. However, this principle has no application in the present case because the petitioner has already submitted his explanation and participated in the enquiry. Thus, he has already come out with his case and disclosed his defence. Therefore, at this stage, by restraining the respondents from passing a final order, no purpose will be served. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to file his explanation within a period of three weeks from today, if not already filed. After receiving the explanation, the respondents shall be free to pass a final order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.11585 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:28.04.2009 Usd