IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 768 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/03/2009 in WP NO : 6200 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: B.Viswanatha Reddy S/o.Narayana Reddy Kalasamudram Branch, R/o. No.13-280, Sunnapu Geri, Tadipatri, Anantapur District. ..... APPELLANT 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 Appellant:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :768 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.3.2009 in Writ Petition No. 6200 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. The facts in brief are that criminal and departmental proceedings have been initiated against the appellant for his alleged involvement in certain financial irregularities. A charge sheet was issued to the appellant in so far as departmental proceedings are concerned and the appellant seemed to have submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. It is stated that the investigation has been completed in respect of criminal proceedings also and the respondents are going to file the charge sheet very shortly. He, therefore filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking to declare the charge sheet dated 1.3.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further direction was also sought 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 is disposed of. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that since the appellant has disclosed his defence, there is no necessity for stalling the departmental proceedings initiated against him. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that in the instant case since the departmental proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings are initiated on the same set of facts and the witnesses and the documents are also the same in both the proceedings, the learned single Judge ought to have directed the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal case. Admittedly, the appellant has already disclosed his defence in the reply and as the appellant had already suffered prejudice on account of disclosure of his defence in the reply, there is no necessity to stall the departmental proceedings, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge. In view of the fact that the appellant himself has admitted that he gave reply to the charge sheet denying all the allegations contained therein, we do not find any force in the contention of the appellant counsel. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned single Judge warranting interference. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 2nd July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb