IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

rd

ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 515 of 2025 GABBAR SINGH Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.B.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Pushpendra Yadav By way of this intra-court appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, appellant is challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.25093/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is working as Head Constable in the respondents' department. On 04.05.2024, an FIR was registered against him bearing Crime No.170/2024 in Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior for the offence under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 506 of IPC for committing rape against the complainant multiple times between September 2022 to April 2024. Consequent upon registration of FIR, appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 05.05.2024. Subsequently, a notice dated 09.08.2024 was issued by which he was called upon to give his statement in preliminary inquiry. The order of suspension and letter dated 09.08.2024 was challenged by the appellant in writ petition mainly on the ground that on account of registration of criminal case, appellant has been placed under suspension but the same was continued without application of mind. The respondents have also initiated the departmental inquiry which amounts to double jeopardy.

3. It was the case of appellant before the learned writ Court that the investigation in a criminal case has been completed and framing of charge will take time and trial would take further time therefore, appellant cannot be placed under suspension for such a long time. Learned writ Court by impugned order, dismissed the writ petition, hence the present appeal. In the present appeal, appellant has also prayed for stay of the charge-sheet issued during the pendency of writ petition. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant confined his argument mainly on the ground that the departmental proceeding and criminal case are based on the same set of facts, therefore, departmental proceeding should not be initiated against the appellant. If appellant discloses the evidence in departmental proceedings same will cause serious prejudice to the appellant in criminal case.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was placed under suspension on account of registration of a criminal case and now appellant has been unnecessarily targeted by initiation of departmental inquiry which is unconstitutional. The appellant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supported the order passed by learned writ Court and argued that there is no bar to conduct disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously and prayed for dismissal of appeal.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed for stay of departmental proceeding on the ground that on the same set of facts, criminal case is also pending but appellant neither challenged the charge-sheet of departmental enquiry before the writ Court nor before this Court. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the letter dated 09.08.2024 by which he was called upon to give his statement in his preliminary inquiry. After completing the preliminary inquiry, charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on 15.01.2025 but the said charge-sheet was not challenged by the appellant neither in the writ Court n