B. Sureshkumar vs Deputy Inspector General of Police

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J
B. Sureshkumar – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General of Police – Respondent
W.P.Nos.31972|31976|34588|35488|35745|36342|40329|40562|40711 of 2025

Important Points

Disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials may proceed simultaneously, but should be stayed if the departmental inquiry involves grave charges, complex legal issues, or would prejudice the accused's defense at trial, depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Subject

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings vs Criminal Trial

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226
Prevention of Corruption Act: S.7(a)
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955: R.17(b)

Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Disciplinary proceedings vis-a-vis criminal proceedings - Concurrent proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Whether disciplinary proceedings should be stayed pending criminal trial depends on facts of each case - Where charges are grave and involve complicated questions of law and fact, it is advisable to keep departmental proceedings in abeyance - However, where investigation is pending or no final report is filed, simultaneous proceedings do not cause prejudice to delinquent. (Paras 22, 26, 27, 32, 34)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed seeking to defer disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of criminal trials for the same set of charges. Some petitioners challenged the appointment of enquiry officers or charge memos while criminal cases were under investigation or trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Findings of Court:
Court held that while there is no absolute bar to simultaneous proceedings, departmental enquiries should be deferred if they involve grave charges and complex legal questions that could prejudice the delinquent's defense. For cases where trials are active, directions were given to stay disciplinary proceedings with a timeline for the criminal court. For cases where investigations were still pending or petitions were stalling tactics, the court dismissed the challenges.

Issues: Whether departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of concurrent criminal trials based on the same set of facts.

Ratio Decidendi: While disciplinary and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously, if the departmental inquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent or involves complex legal questions, it is advisable to stay the inquiry until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

Result: Several WPs allowed with directions to expedite criminal trials; certain other WPs dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Venkataramani, S.Sivakumar, M.Muthappan, L.Chandrakumar, V.Vijay Shankar, J.Saravana Vel, P.Ezhil Nilavan, G.Sankaran, S.Nedunchezhiyan, G.Bala, Daisy
For the Respondents: Dakshayani Reddy, S.Yashwanth, R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar, P.Kumaresan, K.Surender, K.Tippu Sulthan, P.S.Raman, Yogesh Kannadasan, David Sundar Singh

Table of Content
1. overview of petitions regarding simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments for staying departmental inquiry pending criminal trial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. respondents' arguments for simultaneous proceedings based on government orders. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
4. legal standard for deferring disciplinary proceedings based on prejudice and complexity. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. directions to stay disciplinary proceedings for specific petitioners pending criminal trial. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
6. dismissal of petitions where simultaneous proceedings do not cause prejudice. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

COMMON O RDER

1.W.P.No.31972 of 2025 has been filed for direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.No.92/2025 dated 01.07.2025 u/r 17(b) of the TNCS (D and A) Rules in abeyance, pending disposal of the criminal case in CC No.459 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate -II, Cuddalore.

2. W.P.No.31976 of 2025 has been filed for direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.No.93/2025 dated 01.07.2025 u/r 3(b) of the TNPSS (D and A) Rules in abeyance, pending disposal of the criminal case in CC No.459 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate -II, Cuddalore.

3. W.P.No.34588 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 31.07.2025, thereby ordering for fresh enquiry and the subsequent order dated 12.08.2025 on the file of the fourth respondent, thereby directing the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer to collect the copies of the documents which were annexed along with the charge memo.

4. W.P.No.35488 of 2025 has been filed challenging the charge memo issued by the second respondent dated 30.04.2025.

5. W.P.No.35745 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 08.08.2025, thereby appointing Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry on the charge memo served on the petitioner and consequently, directing the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance, pending disposal of the criminal case registered in Crime No.8 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Cell, V and AC, Chennai-19.

6. W.P.No.36342 of 2025 has been filed for direction directing the first respondent to defer the departmental proceedings on the charge memo till the conclusion of the criminal case.

7. W.P.No.40329 of 2025 has been filed for direction directing the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case in C.C.No.10 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

8. W.P.No.40562 of 2025 has been filed for direction directing the respondents to defer the enquiry proceedings based on the charge memo till the conclusion of the criminal case.

9. W.P.No.40711 of 2025 has been filed for direction directing the respondents to defer the enquiry proceedings based on the charge memo till the conclusion of the criminal case.

10. The issue in all the writ petitions are that the petitioners are facing disciplinary proceedings on various charge memos, pursuant to the registration of criminal cases and they are also facing criminal prosecution, pursuant to the registration of FIR. Some of the writ petitions have been filed challenging the charge memo, appointment of Enquiry Officer and order of fresh enquiry. Some of the writ petitions have been filed for direction directing the disciplinary authority to defer the disciplinary proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to pass a common order.

11. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.31972, 31976, 34588 and 35745 of 2025 submits that the issuance of charge memo itself is contrary t