IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 890 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/04/2009 in WP NO : 8839 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Subhash Yalla, S/o. Sri Y. Subba Rao, R/o. Flat No. 203, Sai Home Residency, Street No. 10, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 M/s. Vijaya Bank, Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office 41/2, Triniti Circle, M.G. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State 2 The Deputy General Manager - Personnel (Disciplinary Authority), M/s. Vijaya Bank, Head Office 41/2, Triniti Circle, M.G. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State 3 The Senior Manager/Enquriy Officer, Personnel Department, (IRD), M/s. Vijaya Bank, Head Office 41/2, Triniti Circle, M.G. Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.04.2009 made in WP No. 8839 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition permitting the appellant to file his explanation within a period of three weeks from the date of order, if not already filed, to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the writ petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that after completion of the departmental proceedings against the appellant, a criminal complaint was filed and any final order passed by the disciplinary Authority, would prejudice the interest of the appellant and, as such, sought a writ of mandamus seeking to restrain the respondents from passing a final order in the Departmental proceedings. The learned Single Judge having been not satisfied with the contention raised by the appellant, dismissed the same, aggrieved by which, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The relief of restraining the employer from passing the final order can be granted, where the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are on the same set of charges, in view of the fact that the delinquent has to disclose his defence, in which event there is likelihood of his interests in the criminal trial prejudiced. In view of this settled principle, the learned single Judge is perfectly justified in observing that since the appellant had already submitted his explanation and participated in the enquiry disclosing his defence and, therefore, has rightly denied the relief of restraining the respondents from passing a final order. Having gone through the impugned order and the material available on record, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar July 10, 2009 MAS.