Allahabad High Court
INDRAJEET KUMAR GONDversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court disposed the writ petition, directing the disciplinary authority to examine the grievance and decide on the continuation of disciplinary proceedings, without entertaining the merits of the case.
Summary
The petitioner, Indrajeet Kumar Gond, challenged disciplinary proceedings and a criminal case filed against him under sections of the B.N.S. Act and the Arms Act. He argued that the simultaneous proceedings violated principles of natural justice. The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Bharar Lal v. State of U.P. and Supreme Court precedents (Capt. M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India), held that the merits of the case should be examined by the disciplinary authority and not the court. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed without adjudicating the substantive allegations. The court directed the Superintendent of Police to consider the petitioner’s grievance within three months and to decide within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary inquiry, communicating the decision to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the existence of simultaneous criminal and disciplinary proceedings against a public servant prejudices the petitioner and violates natural justice.
- Whether the High Court can intervene in the merits of a disciplinary proceeding pending before the disciplinary authority.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief pending the outcome of the disciplinary inquiry.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 4
- B.N.S. Act — s. 103(1), 137(2), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- disciplinary proceedings
- criminal prosecution
- natural justice
- simultaneous proceedings
- Arms Act
- police service
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14980 of 2026
Indrajeet Kumar Gond
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Jay
Vishwanath Pandey
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 137(2), 103(1), 238, 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section
4 & 25 of Arms Act. 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. 14980 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
Checking your session…