Allahabad High Court
DIGAMBER SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, and the respondents are directed to decide within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Supreme Court precedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Digamber Singh, was charged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and faced both criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings. He filed a writ petition challenging the concurrent proceedings, alleging prejudice. The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Bharar Lal v. State of U.P. and to Supreme Court rulings in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and State Bank of India cases, noting that the question of prejudice and identical evidence is for the disciplinary authority. Without addressing the merits, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the respondents to decide within six weeks whether to continue the disciplinary action in line with the Supreme Court guidelines. The order also referenced a prior writ (Writ‑A No. 7515 of 2021) and directed communication of the decision to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether simultaneous criminal and disciplinary proceedings under Section 420 IPC prejudice the petitioner
- Whether the High Court can intervene in the merits of the disciplinary proceeding
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- Section 420 IPC
- disciplinary proceedings
- criminal prosecution
- simultaneous proceedings
- double jeopardy
- writ petition
- high court
- natural justice
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15851 of 2026
Digamber Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Irfan Ahmad Malik
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 420 of I.P.C. 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)
WRIA No. 15851 of 2026
2
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 29, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…