(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-aside the Order of Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 15380 of 2025 by allowing the present Writ Appeal

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay the departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Enquiry Notice dated 18/06/2025 vide Ref. No. Estt. Section / Atmakur Branch / 2025-26 in Charge Memo Ref. No. Estt / Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file / 2024-25, dated 31/12/2024 and pass

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:

1. Challenge in this writ appeal is against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.15380 of 2025 by a learned Judge of this Court. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondents with reference to their status in the writ petition.

3. The Writ Petition was filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings vide Estt. Section/Atmakuru Branch/2025-26, dated 19.06.2025, rejecting the request of the petitioner to stay the departmental enquiry initiated against him vide Charge Memo bearing Ref. No.Estt /Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file / 2024-25, dated 31.12.2024. during the pendency of Criminal Case vide FIR No.220 of 2024 on the file of Atmakur Police Station, Nandyal District and also directing the petitioner to attend the oral enquiry vide Enquiry Notice dated 18.06.2025 vide Ref.No.Estt. Section/Atmakur Branch / 2025-26 and proceeding with the departmental enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, etc.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the contention of the petitioner and after referring to the legal position that there is no bar for simultaneous holding of criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings in terms of the precedential guidance covered by M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,( (1999) 3 SCC 679) and State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena((1996) 6 SCC 417), dismissed the writ petition. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed.

Case of the petitioner:

5(i). The petitioner was appointed as Staff Assistant on 02.05.2016 in respondent No.1 institution, after completion of training, he was posted as Staff Assistant at Velgodu Branch and worked there for a period of six years. Thereafter, he transferred to Atmakur Branch in the respondent No.1 institution i.e. the Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, in the year 2022 and was promoted as Assistant Manager. There are no adverse remarks against him.

                  (ii). While things stood thus, a preliminary enquiry was initiated against him by respondent No.2 / Chief Executive Officer, Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., vide proceedings No.Estt./ Memos &Charge Memo’s file / 2024-25, dated 30.09.2024, alleging certain irregularities pertaining to deficit in cash balance in the Atmakur Branch. Smt.C. Sowjanya Deepthi, Chief Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer to furnish a report with regard to the said irregularities in Atmakur Branch.

                  (iii). The writ petitioner was suspended from service on 30.09.2024. A committee was constituted with Smt. E. Geetha, Assistant General Manager, as Team Leader and four members to verify all the aspects regarding misappropriation of bank funds and to furnish a report. The enquiry report dated 02.11.2024 was furnished to respondent No.2.

                  (iv). Respondent No.3 lodged a Police report on 05.10.2024 alleging that the writ petitioner and two others colluded and committed offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery, criminal conspiracy, falsification of accounts, forgery of valuable security and cheating by computer resource and misused public and bank amount to a tune of Rs.78,77,767/-. Based on the report, a Criminal Case was registered vide FIR No.220 of 2024 on the file of Atmakur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 61(2), 318(4), 316(5), 336(3), 338, 344 r/w 3(5) BNS, 66-D ITA-2000-2008. The writ petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 and the matter is under investigation and the charge sheet is not yet filed.

                  (v). Based on the preliminary enquiry report and enquiry report, Charge Memo dated 31.12.2024 vide proceedings No.Estt./Memo’s & Charge Memo’s file/2024-25 was issued to the writ petitioner alleging that the writ petitioner failed to take proper care in authorising the transactions, negligent in discharging the duties and failed in day to day cash balance verification at the closing hours, colluded with the cashier responsible in huge deficit and misuse of bank funds resulting in financial loss and wilful disobedience towards higher authorities.

                  (vi). The writ petitioner submitted his explanation. Finding the same as not satisfactory, further proceedings were issued, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a domestic enquiry was conducted and charges were framed against him along with the other bank officers involved.

                  (vii). A representation was submitted by the writ petitioner. Without considering the same, impugned notice dated 18.06.2025 was issued directing him to appear in the domestic enquiry. The authorities are intending to complete the enquiry as early as possible. A criminal case is also pending. The allegations in the criminal case and departmental enquiry are overlapping.

                  (viii). Further, Regulation No.10.2.2 of the Staff Service Regulations for District Cooperative Central Banks in the state of Andhra Pradesh provides that if the allegations in the criminal case are the same, the departmental enquiry may be stayed. If the departmental enquiry is continued, his defence in the criminal case is likely to be affected. Therefore, he is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of directing stay of further enquiry/departmental proceedings.

Case of the respondents:

6(i). There is no bar for proceeding with the enquiry.

                  (ii). There was a deficit of cash balance of Rs.78,77,767/- and the loss is also due to gross negligence and failure of duty by the writ petitioner as Passing Officer and Cashier Sri S. Althaf Hussain. The Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 02.11.2024 reveals that:

                  (i) The Cashier Scroll Book was neither verified nor attested by the Passing Officer (Petitioner) daily, which he was bound to;

                  (ii) Physical Cash was not at all verified and not tallied daily, and transactions were not registered in the Passing Officer’s Scroll Register on September 26 and 27, 2024 which is a primary duty of the Passing Officer which he utterly failed to perform;

                  (iii) The Petitioner “negligently authorized the fictitious transactions of Cash Deposits received and the cash payments made”. His careless authorization of fictitious deposits entered by the Cashier (main accused) allowed the Cashier to transfer funds to his personal accounts, demonstrating the Petitioner’s complete negligence in performing of his legitimate duties and he was utterly failed in safeguarding the public money.

7. Considering the rule position and the contentions of both sides, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

Arguments in the appeal:

For the appellant:

8(i). The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the subject matter in departmental enquiry and criminal case is the same and allowed the write petition granting stay, as the departmental enquiry likely to be prejudice his claim.

                  (ii). The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry are arising out of the same set of facts with allegations of misappropriation of funds and they do not complicated questions of fact. Therefore, Clause 10.2.2 of the Staff Service Regulations for District Co-operative Central Banks is applicable.

                  (iii). The dismissal of the writ petition is incorrect.

For the respondents:

9(i). The learned Single Judge has considered all the merits, rules and legal position as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

                  (ii). There are no grounds to interfere.

                  (iii). Consequently the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11. The appellant is relying on Clause 10.2.2 of the Staff Service Regulations for District Co-operative Central Banks in the state of Andhra Pradesh, under the head “Cases involving Criminal Trial etc.”, which reads as follows:

                  CASES INVOLVING CRIMINAL TRIAL ETC.:

                  Where the charges are of grave nature involving serious criminal act or/and where it involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, the Management may await the decision of the Trial Court and stay the enquiries into the misconduct of the employee, pending the decision of the criminal trial Court dealing with the same facts, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.

12. A plain reading of the said provision indicates that the management may await the decision of the trial Court and stay enquiries into misconduct of the employee pending the decision of the criminal Court. But, the discretion is a qualified one, that is, where serious questions of law or fact are involved and disclosure of the defence may cause prejudice.

                  The request made for stay was rejected by the management and the learned Single Judge recorded the submission of the respondents that merely FIR is filed by the writ petitioner and charge sheet is not yet filed against him to examine the similarity.

13. Further, the learned Single Judge assigned reasons that seven articles of charge were framed against the petitioner, which are principally with regard to his duties as Passing Officer. The petitioner, being the joint custodian of the entire cash in the branch, had failed to verify cash balances, and was negligent thereof, etc. The amount of alleged misappropriation is Rs.73,67,767/-. Considering the magnitude of the misappropriation, the complaint was given. There is no bar for simultaneous holding of criminal trial and disciplinary proceedings. The observation in M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,(1 supra) extracted by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order, which are applicable to the context.

14. It is also relevant to note that the statement of defence is filed by the delinquent in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the plea of prejudice in respect of the criminal case and seeking for stay of the departmental proceedings can be considered as an afterthought. The scope of enquiry in the departmental proceedings is dereliction of duties and misconduct, whereas the scope of enquiry in the criminal case is misappropriation and culpability. The standard of proof and the procedural safeguards are different. Therefore, the circumstances to apply the test of prejudice are not found in the present case.

15. In our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is found to be reasonable and well founded and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.