THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.25996 of 2005 Dated: 21.01.2010 Between: Satyanarayana. .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner, claiming to be the son of late Ramaiah, who died while in service, obtained employment on compassionate grounds on 19.08.1991 as Kamati in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. While so, on receipt of a complaint against the petitioner that he gained employment by deceitful means and misrepresenting the facts, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell of the Corporation, and basing on the report of the said enquiry, revealing that the petitioner was the son of one Papaiah and that the transfer certificate obtained by him from Jawahar Bala Sadan Vidyalaya, Chikkadpally, is bogus, the petitioner was placed under suspension and an enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioner by appointing the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Circle-6, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, as an Enquiry Officer, and after completion of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was removed from service, by order dated 28.01.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.Nos.121 and 4657 of 1995 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, during pendency of the said O.As., the Executive Engineer, Zone-III, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Barkatpura, lodged a complaint before the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer, P.S. Saifabad, alleging that the petitioner gained employment by misrepresenting the facts and producing bogus certificate and false affidavit with an intention to cheat and cause wrongful loss to the Corporation, and the same has been registered as Crime No.69 of 1995, which is pending. Be that as it may, the Tribunal, after considering the matter in detail, by common order dated 14.07.1999 disposed of both the O.As, by setting aside the impugned orders therein and giving liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry, if they propose to do so. Thereafter, the Corporation initiated fresh enquiry against the petitioner and the same is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that during pendency of the fresh enquiry, the Corporation lodged another complaint, numbered as Crime No.582 of 2005 on the file of the 2nd respondent, on the very same allegations leveled in Crime No.69 of 1995, which is pending, and the 2nd respondent is proceeding with the investigation into the matter in Crime No.582 of 2005, without referring to the factual basis in the complaint registered in the year 1995. Hence, this writ petition. Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that when the complaint which was initially lodged against the petitioner and registered as Crime No.69 of 1995 is still pending on the file of the 2nd respondent, lodging of the present complaint registered as Crime No.582 of 2005 on the selfsame allegations is illegal. He further submits that unless and until the fresh enquiry initiated against the petitioner is completed and attains finality, the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded with. I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed further in the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, until the fresh enquiry initiated against him, pursuant to the orders in O.A.Nos.121 and 4657 of 1995, is completed and attains finality. However, it is made clear that respondents 1 and 2 can proceed with the matter in Crime No.69 of 1995 of P.S.Saifabad, Hyderabad, after the fresh enquiry is completed and attains finality. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.01.2010 v v