IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8238 of 2009 Between: Ch. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chauta Daveedu, CRPF Force No.913241831, Constable (General Duty), Aged 36 years,Occ: CRPF Employee (Under Suspension/Medical Treatment/Rest), R/o. H.No.50B, Type-I, Group Centre, CRPF Camp, Hakimpet Post, Sec'bad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-110 001 2 The Director Geenral of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, CGO Comples, Lodi Road, New Delhi- 110 003 3 The inspector General of Police, Southenr Sector, CRPF, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad , A.P., 4 THE DY. Inspector General of Police, Mr. Sanjya Kaushik, (Non IPS) Group Centre, CRPF, Ranga Reddy, Hakimpet Post, Secunderabad- 087, A.P., .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NARINDER PAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief. “For the above reasons, I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent for contemplating a Departmental enquiry vide proceedings No.P-VII-6/2008-GC-R-Ec-II, dated 08.12.2008 on the false and fabricated charges of gold chain snatching of fellow employee Smt. P.Venakta Lakshmi, which is a criminal misconduct, in such cases disciplinary authority has to follow the Government of India's Instructions No.1 given under rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules 1965, where it is clearly mentioned that prosecution should precede departments action, as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and consequently set aside the same.” At the hearing, Sri Narinderpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to question the order passed after the enquiry, if the same is adverse to his interests. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP No.10765 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2009 vrn