(1.) Petitioner is working as Head Constable. On 22.7.2019 charge memo was drawn and served on him. The substance of the charge is he picked up a women from bus station, kept her in a lodge involved in altercation at the lodge and entire episode was video-graphed and uploaded in the social media platforms, which brought bad reputation to the Police Department and also tarnished the image of the victim, violating Rule 3 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. On the same incident Crime No.198 of 2019 was registered under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) read with Section 511 (attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment) of IPC in Nirmal Town Police Station. After completing the investigation, police filed charge sheet in the Court of Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate, Nirmal. According to petitioner, the allegations leveled in the charge sheet by the police and the allegations leveled in the departmental proceedings concern the same incident and gravamen of the charge is same. Therefore, in response to the charge memo, petitioner submitted explanation on 30.8.2019 with specific request to Superintendent of Police, Nirmal district to keep the disciplinary proceedings pending till finalization of criminal case. The said request was not considered and on 17.9.2019 Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner in charge memo dated 22.7.2019. On 10.7.2020 Enquiry Officer issued notice directing the petitioner to appear before him on 11.7.2020. Petitioner attended before the Enquiry Officer and made oral request to defer the enquiry till conclusion of criminal proceedings. Enquiry Officer did not agree to the request of the petitioner and decided to proceed with the oral enquiry. In those circumstances, present writ petition is filed praying to declare the action of third respondent in continuing parallel disciplinary proceedings when criminal proceedings are pending on the same issue, on same set of material facts and evidence as illegal and unconstitutional and seeks direction to stay all further proceedings.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M V Rama Rao for respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner sought to emphasize that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on same set of facts and evidence. By relying on the annexures enclosed to the charge sheet in domestic enquiry, vis ?-vis, the witnesses cited in the criminal case, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the charges in the domestic enquiry are sought to be sustained based on the material gathered by the police in the process of investigation into Crime No.198 of 2019 and if the same evidence is produced in departmental proceedings, it would necessarily result in disclosure of defense by the petitioner and would therefore seriously prejudice his defense in the criminal case. Further, 24 witnesses have to be examined and during the course of recording their evidence, disclosure of any information may impact the defence of the petitioner in criminal proceedings. He is also required to deal with the video uploaded in the social media. Petitioner has to secure call data record to strengthen his defence. All this may have a direct bearing on the defence in criminal case. He would further submit that petitioner lacks skill and legal intricacies to face two proceedings simultaneously and even a small error committed by him in his defence in departmental proceedings would harm his defence before the competent criminal court. Therefore, continuation of the departmental proceedings would cause serious prejudice to petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Captain M.Paul Anthony Vs Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1993) 3 SCC 679 and Mallaraset Rambabu Vs State of Telangana Manu/TL/0361/2019 =WP 21012 of 19 dt 15.10.2019.