Allahabad High Court
PRIYA SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is disposed, directing the respondent to determine within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with Supreme Court precedents on concurrent proceedings.
Summary
Petitioner Priya Singh challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her while a criminal case under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was pending. She argued that the simultaneous proceedings would prejudice her rights and sought relief through a writ petition. The Court noted the earlier decision in Bharar Lal v. State of U.P. (2022 ADJ 374) that such factual issues are best examined by the disciplinary authority and referred to Supreme Court precedents on the impact of concurrent proceedings. Without addressing the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to decide within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary action, in line with the judgments of Capt. M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India. The order also reiterated that the decision must be communicated to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether disciplinary proceedings can lawfully continue concurrently with a criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the petitioner would be prejudiced by the existence of simultaneous proceedings.
- Whether the writ court can intervene in the merits of the disciplinary inquiry.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 12, 7
Subjects
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- disciplinary proceedings
- criminal prosecution
- simultaneous proceedings
- writ petition
- prejudice
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15294 of 2026
Priya Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam,
Sanyam Tiwari, 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 7/12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
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. 15294 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 23, 2026
Rishabh
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…