Allahabad High Court

AJIT KUMARversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed and the matter is referred to the disciplinary authority to decide on continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, as concurrent proceedings are a matter for that authority.

Summary

Ajit Kumar challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him while a criminal case was also filed under sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 103(1), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Act. He argued that the concurrent proceedings would prejudice his rights and sought relief through a writ petition. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Bharar Lal v. State of U.P. and observed that questions about the identity of evidence and prejudice are best decided by the disciplinary authority, not the court. Citing Supreme Court judgments in M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India, the Court directed the respondent to examine the grievance within six weeks and decide whether to continue the disciplinary action. Without addressing the merits, the writ petition was disposed, leaving the matter to the disciplinary authority.

Issues considered

Whether simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings on the same charges prejudice the petitioner.
Whether the court can intervene in the disciplinary proceedings or should defer to the disciplinary authority.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under the principles laid down in M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India cases.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Police Act — s. 103(1), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5)

Subjects

disciplinary proceedings
criminal prosecution
simultaneous proceedings
double jeopardy
writ petition
Supreme Court precedent
Uttar Pradesh Police Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14976 of 2026

Ajit Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Jay
Vishwanath Pandey, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent-State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation against the
petitioner is under Section 190/191(2)/191(3)/103(1)/109(1)3(5) B.N.S.
The petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings as well as
criminal prosecution on the same charges.

3. In case of Bharar Lal v. State of U.P. and others; 2022 (1) ADJ 374,
disposed of by order dated 14.07.2021, this Court has held as under:-

"Learned Standing Counsel states that the issues on facts raised by the
petitioner can more appropriately be examined by the disciplinary
authority, at the first instance.

The question as to whether evidence to be relied upon in both the
proceedings are identical, or whether petitioner would be prejudiced, in
any manner, by holding of simultaneous proceedings, in view of the tests
laid down by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and State
Bank of India (supra) can more appropriately be examined by the
disciplinary authority.

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction upon the
respondent no.3/the Superintendent of Police, District Chitrakoot to
examine petitioner's grievance, as noticed above, keeping in view the
WRIA No. 14976 of 2026
2

observations made by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)
and State Bank of India (supra) and this Court in Dhirendra Kumar
Tiwari (supra), within a period of three months from the date of
presentation of a copy of this order."

4. Without entering into merit of this case, since there is a disciplinary
proceeding against the petitioner and a First Information Report is also
lodged against him, this petition is disposed of in terms of order passed in
writ petition bearing Writ-A No. 7515 of 2021.

5. The respondents will take a decision in terms of judgments passed by
Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
another, (1999)3 SCC 679 and State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma,
(2004)7 SCC 27, Keshvendra Dwivedi Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
passed in Writ-A No. 12210 of 2025, decided on 23.8.2025 and by this
Court in Writ-A No. 7515 of 2021 within a period of six weeks from
today, whether in the given set of circumstances, they will opt to continue
or not to continue disciplinary proceedings in pending investigation and
will communicate to petitioner.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 18, 2026
Ved Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…