Allahabad High Court
MANOJ KUMAR YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The disciplinary proceedings are to be stayed for one year or until the prosecution evidence is concluded, whichever is earlier.
Summary
Manoj Kumar Yadav, an Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, was arrested after being caught red‑handed taking a bribe and an FIR was filed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A disciplinary enquiry was simultaneously initiated against him for the same allegations, and he applied to have the departmental proceedings stayed until the criminal trial concluded. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, which allow simultaneous proceedings but permit a stay where the criminal charge is grave and involves complex facts, provided the disciplinary process is not unduly delayed. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the charge sheet had already been served, the Court found a balance between protecting the employee’s rights and the public interest. It therefore ordered the disciplinary proceedings to remain stayed for one year or until the prosecution evidence is completed, whichever occurs first, after which the enquiry must resume and be concluded promptly.
Issues considered
- Whether departmental (disciplinary) proceedings against a public servant should be stayed pending the conclusion of a criminal trial on identical charges.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence and the risk of prejudice justify a stay of the disciplinary enquiry.
- Whether a stay would result in undue delay of the departmental proceedings contrary to administrative efficiency.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- criminal trial
- stay of proceedings
- corruption
- public servant
- disciplinary enquiry
- right to fair trial
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 3551 of 2026
Manoj Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar Yadav, Rajesh Kumar
Yadav, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Shiv Kumar Pal
Reserved on 31.03.2026
Delivered on 20.04.2026
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajesh
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Kumar Pal,
Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
2. The Instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned
order dated 27.02.2026 and a direction to the respondent-Authorities to
suspend the departmental proceeding initiated in pursuance of the
impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the respondent no.2, till the
disposal of the trial of CNR No. BRPA010000092026 pending in the
Court of DJ Div. Patna Sadar.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as
Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force (RPF) in the year 1998 and
thereafter he was promoted as Inspector in the year 2011 and posted at
several places. At present he is posted as Inspector, Passenger Security,
East Central Railway Zone, Office of Senior Divisional Security
Commissioner at Pdt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, District Chandauli. Prior
to it, the petitioner was posted and working as Inspector, RPF, Rail
Thana, Navgachhiya, Bhagalpur, Bihar. While such posting of the
petitioner at Rail Thana, Navgachhiya, Bhagalpur, on 30.10.2025, the
CBI registered an FIR No. RC0232025A0030 under Section 7 of
WRIA No. 3551 of 2026
2
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station CBI/ACB/Patna. In
connection of the said FIR, the petitioner herein was arrested and he was
enlarged on bail by the CBI Court on 12.01.2026 and in the meanwhile,
the petitioner herein was transferred to Chandauli on 02.01.2026. The
petitioner joined his services on 10.02.2026 as Inspector, Passenger
Security at Chandauli. After registration of the said FIR by the CBI, the
charge sheet was also issued by the disciplinary authority against the
petitioner on 19.11.2025. According to the petitioner, the same has been
duly served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2026. In the aforesaid criminal
case lodged against the petitioner, the charge sheet has been filed after
completion of the investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an
application on 26.02.2026 before the Senior Divisional Security
Commissioner/R.P.F. East Central Railway/DDU Div. and again on
27.02.2026 before the Assistant Security Commissioner/RPF, East
Central Railway/DDU-cum-Enquiry Officer with prayer that till the
disposal of the criminal trial, the disciplinary proceedings be kept in
abeyance and vide impugned order dated 27.02.2026, the disciplinary
authority rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for keeping in
abeyance the disciplinary proceeding till the conclusion of the trial in the
criminal proceedings.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the
judgment of Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (3) SCC 679, submits that if the
departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical
charges and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent
employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated questions of
law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings
till the conclusion of the criminal case, as the disclosure of his defense in
the disciplinary proceeding may prejudice the criminal trial against the
petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has further relied upon the judgment
of Apex Court in State Bank of India and others vs. Neelam Nag and
another (2016) 9 SCC 491, wherein the disciplinary proceedings were
stayed until the closure of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses
cited in the criminal trial. Thus, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner
WRIA No. 3551 of 2026
3
should be stayed till the prosecution evidence is over in the criminal trial
lodged against the petitioner for the identical allegations.
5. Per contra, Shri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India submits that in the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra)
relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Apex
Court itself has cautioned that due regard has to be given to the fact that
the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. The fate of the
criminal trial is uncertain and the period how much time it will take is not
known. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be kept in
abeyance for indefinite period. It is further submitted by learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India that the allegations in the instant case are very
grave in nature against the petitioner. The petitioner was caught red-
handed while taking bribe. Therefore, continuance of the petitioner in
service with the aforesaid tainted allegations for indefinite period, is not
feasible and public will lose the confidence and it will also provide
opportunity to the petitioner to repeat the similar incidents that will be
prejudicial to the interest of public at large. Thus, it is submitted by the
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that it is settled position of law
that the criminal trial as well as the criminal proceeding shall operate in
different spheres. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents seeks
dismissal of the instant petition.
6. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for the
parties, this Court has carefully gone through the entire record of the
case. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner herein
was caught red-handed while taking bribe from the persons, whom he has
permitted to cultivate the land belonging to the railways and he was
arrested on the spot by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and a criminal case
was lodged against the petitioner. Thereafter, disciplinary proceeding was
also initiated for the similar allegations against the petitioners and the
charge sheet has also been issued on 29.11.2025 which has been
admittedly served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2026. Accordingly, the
petitioner has sought stay of the disciplinary proceedings against him,
which has been declined by the department. The Apex Court in M. Paul
Anthony (supra) has laid down the following guidelines, which deals
with such situations and the conclusions drawn by the Apex Court in the
WRIA No. 3551 of 2026
4
said judgment are as under:
"22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can
proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted
simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case
against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves
complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the
departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and
whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case,
will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched
against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected
against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in
isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be
given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly
delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly
delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on
account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and
proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the
employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he
is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
7. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has categorically observed
that there is no bar in simultaneous proceedings in the departmental
proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings. However, it has been
observed that if there are identical and similar facts and charge in criminal
case against the delinquent employee is of grave nature, which involves
complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the
departmental proceedings. From the aforesaid judgment itself, it is
apparent that it is not mandatory in each and every case that the
departmental proceedings should be stayed. Before passing any order of
WRIA No. 3551 of 2026
5
staying the departmental proceedings, it has to be kept in due regard that
the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. It has been
further observed by the Apex Court that if the criminal case does not
proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental
proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the
criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them
at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may
be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of
him at the earliest in the public interest.
8. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the primary
consideration is to balance that the right of such delinquent employee is
not affected due to the defence taken by him in the disciplinary
proceedings and it has also to be seen that the disciplinary proceedings
are not unduly delayed. In the light of the aforesaid consideration, the
Apex Court has further observed that if a criminal proceeding is unduly
delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the
disciplinary enquiry.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
criminal case the charge sheet has already been filed and trial is
proceeded and the disciplinary proceedings are also pending.
10. In view thereof, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction
that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall remain stayed
for a period of one year from today or till the conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, whichever is earlier. On conclusion of the
prosecution evidence or on expiry of period of one year from today, the
disciplinary proceedings shall resume against the petitioner and shall be
concluded in accordance with law at the earliest.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
April 20, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…