IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6200 of 2009 Between: B.Viswanatha Reddy S/o.Narayana Reddy Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kalasamudram Branch, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, represented by its Chairman, H.O. Cuddapah 516 001. 2 The General Manager,Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, H.O. Cuddapah 516 001. 3 The Senior Manager-cum-Enquiry Officer, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, H.O. Cuddapah 516 001. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH FOR DR.P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:MS. V.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare charge sheet, dated 01.03.2008 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents not to proceed further with the departmental proceedings until Crime No.11 of 2008, on the file of Patnam Police Station, Anantapur District, is disposed of. Heard Sri P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel representing Dr. P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is faced with the criminal and departmental proceedings for allegedly indulging in financial irregularities. In the departmental proceedings, charge sheet has been issued and the petitioner specifically averred that he gave his reply denying the allegations contained in the charge sheet. He further averred that investigation by the police is completed and charge sheet is likely to be filed shortly. At this stage, he filed the present writ petition for the relief referred to above. The only ground on which the petitioner is seeking stalling of the departmental proceedings is that he will be forced to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings, which may prejudice his interests in the criminal proceedings. Ordinarily, when the departmental and criminal proceedings are instituted on the same set of allegations, it is desirable that the employer will not proceed with the departmental proceedings till criminal proceedings end. This is because the delinquent employee will be forced to disclose his defence, which would jeopardize his interests in the criminal case. But, in the instant case, the petitioner had himself admitted that he gave reply denying all the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Thus, the petitioner already disclosed his defence. In the face of this fact, I am of the view that it is not necessary to stall the departmental proceedings as the petitioner has already suffered whatever prejudice he is likely to suffer on account of disclosing of his defence by filing a reply. For the above-mentioned reasons, I am not inclined to stall the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8109 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th MARCH, 2009. kvni