Departmental Inquiry Based On Identical Facts & Evidence As Criminal Trial Should Not Proceed: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order whereby the Petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of Rule 4 (3)A of the Uttar Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999 due to the aspect of deemed suspension upon incarceration.

Update: 2025-09-07 10:30 GMT

The Allahabad High Court, while granting relief to a Government Officer accused of murder, has held that there is weight in the submission that departmental proceedings based on identical facts and evidence to the charges levelled in criminal proceedings should not proceed.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order whereby the Petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of Rule 4 (3)A of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999 due to the aspect of deemed suspension upon incarceration.

The Bench of Justice Manish Mathur held, "It is also submitted that since the departmental proceedings are identical to the charges levelled in criminal proceedings, it would be beyond jurisdiction of departmental proceedings to give any finding with regard allegations levelled under the Indian Penal Code.......Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which purpose opposite parties are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Alok Mishra, while the Respondent was represented by C.S.C.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that earlier Petitioner was indicated as involved in a case registered under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code due to which she was incarcerated, resulting in a deemed suspension. It was submitted that subsequently, the Petitioner was reinstated in service primarily on the ground that finality in a Criminal Case may take a long time. It was further submitted that earlier the departmental inquiry was stayed by the authority itself on the ground that the nature of allegations and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were identical.

It is also submitted that subsequently, upon filing of the charge-sheet in the criminal case, the fresh impugned orders were passed without recording any reason for taking a contrary view to the one which was taken earlier.

The matter has been adjourned to September 25, 2025.

Cause Title: Sunita Devendra @ Sunita Kureel vs. State Of U.P.

Click here to read/ download Order 




Tags:    

Similar News