IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5576 of 2008 Between: Paluri Vera Venkata Surya Bhaskar S/o.Pattabhiramaya R/o. 12-3-32/3, Shayyametta, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. 2 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings issued by the Disciplinary Authority Cum District Judge, Rajahm,undry dt. 6-2-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and to stay further all proceedings in departmental enquiry on the file of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry till the conculsion of the sessions case vide P.R.C. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistratre Court at Rajahmandry and pass such order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR APHC)D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5576 of 2008 ORDER: It is an unfortunate case of petitioner allegedly misbehaving with a female employee in the Office of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. For such misbehaviour, departmental enquiry is on into a charge of misconduct towards female employee. The alleged incidents are also matter of crime under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Sessions case arising out of PRC No.2 of 2007 is pending adjudication. In this background, petitioner approached first respondent requesting to stay departmental/disciplinary proceedings till conclusion of trial in the Sessions Court. By impugned order, dated 06.02.2008, learned District Judge placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Jang Bahadur Singh v Baij Nath[1], rejected the request. The petitioner seeks redressal against the same before this Court. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, we are not able to countenance the submissions nor accept writ petition for further probe. It is settled that when the same course of action, in which Government employee is player, is subject matter of criminal proceedings as well as domestic enquiry, it is for disciplinary authority to exercise discretion and pass orders either staying or otherwise the departmental proceedings. There cannot be any straight jacket formula in every case. In this case, after perusing material on record, we are satisfied that the learned District Judge did not commit any grave error apparent on the face of record to invoke writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. This Court, however, observes that departmental enquiry may be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _________________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 19.03.2008 pln To 1 District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. 2 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] AIR 1969 SC 30