Sri Swarna Srinivasa Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh High Court, 22 February 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 APHC010068992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4340/2026 Between: 1. SRI SWARNA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. YALLAMANDA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICER, (FORMERLY. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER), IN O/O. JOINT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX), NELLORE DIVISION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. R/O. FLAT NO. 203, D.NO. 37-1-409/37/1, ALURI ARCHADE APARTMENT, BHAGYANAGAR 3RD LINE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -523001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAXES WING), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.522238 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. (PRO FORMA RESPONDENT IMPLEADED IN VIEW OF PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL NO RELIEF IS 2 CLAIMED AGAINST THIS RESPONDENT.)522238 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER ST, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522501 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, GUNTUR II DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522003 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ST, O/O. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST), GUNTUR II DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522003 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding with the departmental enquiry pursuant to the proceedings bearing CCSTs Ref No. REV03-19023/3/2023-VIG-CCT-1, dated 14.12.2024, the order initiating common disciplinary proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, the charge memo bearing CCSTs Ref No. REV03- 19023/3/2023-VIG-CCT-3, dated 14.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent. and the summons dated 17.11.2025 issued by the 5th respondent proposing to conduct the departmental enquiry on 25.11.2025 and subsequent dates, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, contrary to the settled principles of law, in breach of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondents to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid order initiating common disciplinary proceedings, charge memo, proceedings and summons and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, 3 the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings of departmental enquiry pursuant to the proceedings bearing CCST’s Ref No. REV03-19023/3/2023-VIG-CCT-1, dated 14.12.2024, the order initiating common disciplinary proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, the charge memo bearing CCST’s Ref No. REV03-19023/3/2023-VIG-CCT-3, dated 14.12.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, and the summons dated 17.11.2025 issued by the 5th respondent proposing to conduct the departmental enquiry on 25.11.2025 and subsequent dates and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NALLURI ANUDEEP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

ORDER: Heard Sri Anudeep Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. 2. The proceedings dated 14.12.2024 were issued by the respondents 3 and 5 in initiating and proceeding with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. A charge memo vide Memo dated 14.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written defense on 25.11.2025. A criminal case vide C.C.No.26 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore was registered against the petitioner by Sub-Inspector

of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The basis of charge, as seen from the Annexure-I is that the petitioner while working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the office of the Commercial Tax Office-II, Ongole Circle, Prakasam District demanded and accepted bribe of an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. Based on the incident aforementioned, a criminal case was registered as well as departmental proceedings were initiated. A charge sheet was filed on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore and the same Another1 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 22 observed as follows;

1 1999(3) SCC 679

“22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge- sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due

regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on the Tandel and Others2 wherein at Para No.17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows:

“17. It is well settled that a departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal court are completely different. The purpose is different, the standard of proof is different and the approach is also different. The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we are concerned in the present

2 (2019) 6 SCC 155

matter can never be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings were pending. The allegations made against Respondent 1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent. Whether any criminal trial was pending or not would not be having any bearing on the pending issue before the Inquiry Committee. We have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the approach of the nominee of Respondent 1 and of the State Awardee Teacher was completely wrong and unsustainable.”

In the case at hand, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on his involvement in ACB trap. The list of witnesses mentioned in Annexure-III and the list of witnesses in the charge sheet are mostly similar. In the circumstances, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to continue, the petitioner is required to divulge his defense and it will cause prejudice to the petitioner.

In State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and Anr3 , the Hon’ble Apex Court issued directions to the Sessions Court to complete the Criminal Trial as expeditiously as possible, not later than one year from the date of the order.

3 (2016) 9 SCC 491

Given directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the departmental proceedings, for one year.

Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed for one year. The Learned Special Judge for the Trial of SPE & ACB cases, Nellore shall complete the criminal trial in the above C.C.No.26 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one (01) year, since the departmental proceedings initiated are stayed, pending disposal of the criminal case. It is needless to mention here that the petitioner shall cooperate during the trial of the criminal case without asking for adjournments. The petitioner shall file a copy of this order before the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the criminal case. If the petitioner fails to cooperate with the trial in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority shall take recourse to guideline (v) in Captain Paul Anthony’s case.

10.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsels. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date:23.02.2026 GK

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

118

WRIT PETITION NO:4340 of 2026

Dated:23.02.2026