THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.3945 of 2007 Date: 16.06.2011 Between: The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Petitioner AND Dr. Yellinedi Sagareswara Rao Retired Addl. Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, r/o.Guntur. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.3945 of 2007 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): The writ petition is filed to issue an order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 29.09.2006 and 17.10.2006 passed in O.A.No.6163 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent, who is the applicant in O.A.No.6163 of 2006, is a retired Additional Commissioner of Panchayat Raj. While he was working as Chief Executive Officer, Vizianagaram, the A.C.B. conducted trap on 04.04.2001 and a criminal case in C.C.No.16 of 2002 was laid against him and he was placed under suspension vide orders dated 07.05.2001. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, convicted him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month u/s. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2004. By order dated 04.02.2004, passed in Crl.M.P.No.646 of 2004, this Court granted bail to the respondent and at present the main appeal is pending. Basing on the judgment of the trial Court, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.2156 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (VIG.IV) Department, dated 31.12.2005 withholding the entire pension and gratuity permanently. The said G.O. is challenged before the Tribunal through O.A.No.6163 of 2006. The Tribunal, after perusal of the matter, granted interim suspension of the said G.O. and directed to continue to pay provisional pension as sanctioned in G.O.Rt.No.1851, dated 31.10.2005 pending further orders. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the State-writ petitioner and Sri B. Parameseswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the acquittal of accused in criminal proceedings does not bar the initiation of departmental enquiry. Departmental proceedings are different from criminal proceedings. Even, if the criminal case ends in acquittal, still it is open to the department to proceed with the departmental proceedings. She further contended that the Tribnal has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective and is in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the respondent cannot seek release of pensionary benefits. In support of her contention, the Government Pleader for Services-II cited the following citations: a) I n Kodavanti Basava Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], a Division Bench of this Court observed that the acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar the initiation of the departmental enquiry. Further, in the criminal proceedings, the standard of proof is different as the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the proof in departmental proceedings is with regard to the alleged misconduct under CCA and Conduct Rules. They are two distinct and different areas in the field of service of law. Even Rule 8 (4) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification), Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 contemplates that it is always open to the Department to conduct further enquiry on the allegations of which the Government servant is cleared by the Court. b) In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. P. Rajasekhar and others[2], a Division Bench of this Court observed that suspension of sentence does not obliterate conviction and mere pendency of criminal appeal/revision does not preclude State/disciplinary authority from invoking said power under Rule 25 (1) of the Rules. The Court should not aid public servant, who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold on public office until exonerate. c) In M. Ashok Singh v. Director General of Police, A.P., Hyd[3], a Division Bench of this Court opined that the departmental proceedings are different and distinct from the criminal proceedings. Even, if the criminal case ends in acquittal, still it is open to the department to proceed with the departmental proceedings. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the Government Pleader for Services-II and in view of the above legal position, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Disciplinary Authority to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 16.06.2011 Isn [1] 2010 (6) ALD 287 (DB) [2] 2010 (1) (ALD) 595 (DB) [3] 2010 (1) ALD 742 (DB)