IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4706 of 2009 Between: S. Yadagiri S/o. S. Somaiah Musheerabad Delivery Sub Office, Hyderabad - 500 020. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Senior Supdt. of Post Offices Secunderabad Division Secunderabad. 2 The Asst. Supdt. of Post Offices Secunderabad East Sub Division Secunderabad. 3 The Asst. Supdt. of Post Offices and Inquiry Officer Secunderabad South Sub Division Secunderabad. .....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 order or orders, direction or directions writ or writs particularly one in the nature of 'WRIT OF CERTIORARI' by calling the records pertaining to O.A.No.84/2009 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, wherein the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the respondents therein can proceed with the Departmental Inquiry inasmuch as the allegations on which the departmental inquiry was initiated as no direct similarity with the criminal proceedings before the criminal court. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKANNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 4706 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) Aggrieved by the order, dated 10.02.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.84 of 2009, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as postman in Musheerabad Delivery Sub-Office, Secunderabad Postal Division during February,2008, he misplaced one speed post article containing a passport and the addressee of the said speed post gave a complaint to the Musheerabad Police and based on that the Police arrested the petitioner and investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet under Section 408 IPC and same is pending on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.372 of 2008. While so, the second respondent issued a Departmental Charge Memo under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 dated 18.9.2008/7.10.2008 to the petitioner, imputing the same allegations, which are pending before the criminal court, in Article II of the charge memo, apart from other allegations. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.84 of 2009, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations against the petitioner in the criminal case and the Article II of the Charge Memo, are one and the same and therefore, when a Criminal case is pending against the petitioner on the self same allegations, departmental enquiry cannot be proceeded with and if any statement is made by the petitioner before the departmental enquiry that would amount to extra judicial confession. The Tribunal without taking these aspects into consideration erroneously dismissed the O.A. 4. We have perused the record. The charge framed against the petitioner is in respect of departmental lapses. Whereas the criminal case pending against the petitioner is based on the complaint given by the addressee of the speed post. There is no embargo to proceed with the departmental enquiry when a criminal case is pending. The contention of the petitioner that any statement made before the departmental enquiry would amount to extra judicial confession cannot be accepted as departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings stand on different footing and both are distinct and different. In the departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority proceeds with the enquiry and based on enquiry report, disciplinary action would be taken, whereas, in the criminal proceedings, standard proof is required to come to a just conclusion. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 06.3.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}