Allahabad High Court
MANISH RAJBHARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The High Court disposed the writ petition, directing the disciplinary authority to decide within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary proceedings.
Summary
Manish Rajbhar filed a writ petition challenging disciplinary and criminal proceedings instituted against him under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the concurrent proceedings violated his rights and sought relief from the High Court. The Court noted the earlier decision in Bharar Lal v. State of U.P., which held that issues of overlapping evidence and prejudice are best examined by the disciplinary authority. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India cases), the Court declined to rule on the merits and instead directed the respondents to decide within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary proceedings, communicating the decision to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without substantive adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act prejudice the petitioner.
- Whether the evidence in both proceedings can be identical without violating principles of natural justice.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the disciplinary process.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(b), 13(2), 7
Subjects
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- disciplinary proceedings
- criminal prosecution
- simultaneous proceedings
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- natural justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15540 of 2026
Manish Rajbhar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rudra Pratap 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 7, 13(1)(b) 13(2) of The 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
observations made by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)
and State Bank of India (supra) and this Court in Dhirendra Kumar
WRIA No. 15540 of 2026
2
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 24, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…