HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 24826 OF 2009 Between: Velpula Vijaya Kumar S/o V.J. Kotaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Bank represented by its Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Seethammadhara , Visakhapatnam and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing to stay the operation of the order passed in O.A.No. 139 of 2008 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam filed by the 1st respondent and proceedings of O.S.No. 347 of 2008 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam filed by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of CC No. 9/2008 on the file of Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-typist in the year 1989 and subsequently he was promoted to Officer cadre and then to Assistant Manger and Branch Manager. It is stated that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the Zonal Office, Viaskhapatnam, he was placed under suspension vide orders dated 11.10.2006 pending enquiry. He was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 6.11.2007 on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of charge sheet dated 28.11.2006 on the ground of certain financial irregularities and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority by proceedings dated 31.1.2008. It is stated that as against the said proceedings petitioner filed W.P.No. 3591 of 2008 and the same is pending. It is also stated that the first respondent-Bank filed O.A No. 139 of 2008 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam for recovery of Rs. 33,19,747/- alleging that the said amount was withdrawn fraudulently. Like wise, O.S.No. 347 of 2008 was filed before the II Additional District Judge, Visakahaptnam for recovery of 33,19,747/-. Further C.C.No. 9 of 2008 on the file of Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam is also initiated against the petitioner under Section 120-B, 409, 418, 420, 466, 5471 and 477-A of IPC r/w Section 13(2), 13(1)(c) & (d) of P.C. Act, 1988. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in M. S. SHERIFF AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS[1] the relevant portion at paragraphs 15 and 16 reads as under: “15. As fbetween the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of the Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interest demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved a early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let thing slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceedings may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.” He also contended that when once the criminal proceedings and civil proceedings are pending against the same person the civil proceedings have to await till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the subject matter of the O.A.No. 139 of 2008 on the file of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam is confined and limited only to the loan which the petitioner has obtained from the Bank for his personal purpose viz., housing loan and car loan and when he has not paid the same, the Bank has preferred O.A, which is permissible under law. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the allegations made against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings are with regard to the misappropriation of the amounts and the suit is filed for recovery of the said amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him. The guilt has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings have to be proceeded with, with regard to the misconduct and whereas the criminal proceedings also have to be proceeded with, with regard to the offence committed by the petitioner, as they are different and distinct. In view of the above, we cannot exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction to restrain the petitioner from discharging his statutory obligation and the matter is yet to be adjudicated and facts have to be gone into. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J DATE: 14.06.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1954 SC 397