C.UDHAYAKUMAR vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 20-08-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 31-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 32627 of 2024
AND
WMP NOS. 35470, 35471 & 35473 OF 2024
C.Udhayakumar
S/o.K.Chandran,
Formerly Grade-I Police Constable 1932
(under Suspension) Salem City Police, Salem.
Residential Add. 190/1, Rail Nagar,
Pudu Road Bus Stop, Sooramangalam Po, Salem.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police
Headquarters, Salem City Police,
Salem.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police
Annathanampatty Range,
Salem City, Salem.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
st
the 1 respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in
PR No.33/H1/2024 dated 17.10.2024 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to furnish the copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure
__________
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
III and IV of the charge memo issued in PR No.33/H1/2024 dated 01.10.2023
and also further direct the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings in
abeyance, pending disposal of the criminal case pending on the file of the
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.II, Salem in SC No.188/2024.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi
Special Government Pleader

ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed to quash the disciplinary
proceedings dated 17.10.2024, and to direct the respondents to furnish the
copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure III and IV of the charge
memo issued in PR No.33/H1/2024 dated 01.10.2023 and also further direct
the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance, pending
disposal of the criminal case.
2.The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present
writ petition is that, the petitioner was a Grade-I constable in the respondent-
Department. There was a criminal case pending against him in S.C.No.188 of
2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Salem, in
__________
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
respect of a murder of one Mr.Shankar. It is the submission of the petitioner
that according to the final report filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate
Court, the allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with other co-
accused. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the present disciplinary
proceedings has also been initiated, on the same set of facts and by relying
the same set of witnesses. In the event of proceeding with the disciplinary
proceedings, it may expose his defence in the criminal case.
3.Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would vehemently contend that, since the petitioner has been arrayed as A13
and the departmental charges are identical in nature and the documents as
well as the witnesses are substantially same as in the criminal case, if the
disciplinary proceedings are allowed to proceed with, it would expose the
defence of the petitioner and jeopardise his defence in criminal proceedings.
It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, if the disciplinary
proceedings is not stayed, then the valuable right of the petitioner to defend
the criminal case effectively would be whittled down. In support of his
__________
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., reported in
(1988) 4 SCC 319;
2.A.P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, reported in (1997) 2 SCC
699;
3.M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999)
3 SCC 679;
4.G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446;
5.NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA, reported in (2007) 10
SCC 385;
6.State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma, reported in (2004) 7 SCC
27;
7.Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindra Kumar Bharti, reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 390.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend
that the proof in the criminal case as well as in the disciplinary proceedings
are distinct, as the proof before the Criminal Court is beyond reasonable
doubts. Whereas, in the disciplinary proceedings, it is only a preponderance
of probability. It is also his contention that, the charges though appears to be
the same in the disciplinary proceedings, the misconduct pleaded against the
petitioner is that he had brought disrepute to the police force before the eyes
of the general public. Whereas in the criminal case, the charge is conspiracy.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that both are identical in nature,
cannot be accepted at all. He would further contend that in the criminal
__________
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
proceedings, there were about 57 witnesses, whereas, in the disciplinary
proceedings, it was only 12 witnesses. Therefore, another contention that the
witnesses were identical in nature was also seriously disputed. The learned
Special Government Pleader would also contend that the documents relied in
the disciplinary proceedings is only 20, whereas, according to the final report,
they relied upon 16 Material Objects and voluminous documents. Therefore,
justified the continuance to the disciplinary proceedings simultaneously.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
7.Before we delve into the factual position, this Court deems it
appropriate to consider the legal position with regard to contours in dealing
with the disciplinary proceedings while the criminal proceedings are pending
on identical charge. In Kusheshwar Dubey’ s case [cited supra], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has followed the judgment in Delhi Cloth and General Mills
Ltd., Vs. Kushal Bhan reported in AIR 1960 SC 806, and Tata Oil Mills Co.
Ltd Vs. Workmen reported in AIR 1965 SC 155 and ultimately held as
under:-
“7. The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to
support the position that while there could be no legal bar for
__________
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases
where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings
awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it
would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of
stay or injunction from the court. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be
such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial
consideration and the court will decide in the given circumstances of
a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should
be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated
that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast,
strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application
without regard to the particularities of the individual situation . For
the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say
anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any
general guideline.
8. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary
proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the
view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and
the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court's
order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal. ”
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
__________
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
8.In respect of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd.’s case [cited
supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the case is of a grave
nature or when it involves question of complex fact and law, it would be
advisable to await the decision of the Criminal Court, so that the defence of
the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.
9.Even in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.’ s case [cited supra], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that, if the incident giving rise to the charge framed
against the workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal Court,
then the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal
of the criminal case. Therefore, it is amply clear that whenever the charge in
respect of the disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings are
identical in nature and grounded upon the same set of facts, then it is
advisable and desirable to await the decision of the Criminal Court.
10.From the above discussion, what emerges is that there cannot be any
hard and fast rule to stay the domestic enquiry, wherever the criminal
proceedings are pending. The Court will have to decide the said aspect after
taking into consideration of circumstances of a particular case.
__________
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
11.In the judgment in Kusheshwar Dubey’ s case [cited supra], the
charges tried before the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal
proceedings is a physical assault against the supervising officer.
12.In yet another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd.
Yousuf Miya’s case [cited supra], where the charge against the delinquent in
a disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings in causing death by
negligence. In which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after elaborately
considering the judgements in Kusheshwar Dubey’ s case [cited supra], Delhi
Cloth and General Mills Ltd.,’s case [cited supra] and Tata Oil Mills Co.
Ltd’s case [cited supra] has held as follows:-
“8. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. The
purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two
different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched
for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the
society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender
shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that
the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as
__________
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay
down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the
departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial
in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case
requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously
with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the
charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving
complicated questions of fact and law . Offence generally implies
infringement of public (sic duty), as distinguished from mere
private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for
criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with
proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the
provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case of
departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceedings
relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to
punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory
rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of
the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. The
enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the conduct of
the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high as in
an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the
departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to
effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial
will take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is
__________
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
entirely different from the departmental proceedings. In the
former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the
departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial.
The evidence also is different from the standard point of the
Evidence Act. The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is
not regulated by the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances,
what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry
would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the
trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be
considered in each case depending on its own facts and
circumstances . In this case, we have seen that the charge is failure
to anticipate the accident and prevention thereof. It has nothing to
do with the culpability of the offence under Sections 304-A and
338, IPC. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right
in staying the proceedings.”
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
13.The said position was also reiterated in Capt.M.Paul Anthony ’s
case [cited supra], wherein in paragraph 22, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:-
“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
__________
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
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, the administration may get rid of him at the
earliest.”
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
14.In Noida Enterpreneurs Association’s case [cited supra], a three
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 as
follows:-
“11. A bare perusal of the order which has been quoted in its
totality goes to show that the same is not based on any rational
__________
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
foundation. The conceptual difference between a departmental
enquiry and criminal proceedings has not been kept in view.
Even orders passed by the executive have to be tested on the
touchstone of reasonableness . [See Tata Cellular v. Union of
India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] and Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T.,
Chandigarh [(2004) 2 SCC 130] .] The conceptual difference
between departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings have
been highlighted by this Court in several cases. Reference may be
made to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas [(2004) 7
SCC 442 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1011] , Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry [(2005) 10 SCC 471 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1605]
and Uttaranchal RTC v. Mansaram Nainwal [(2006) 6 SCC 366 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1341] .
“8. … The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are
two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is
launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to
the society or for breach of which law has provided that the
offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that
the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as
expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down
any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental
proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal
case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be
considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances.
There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with
departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the
charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving
complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies
infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private
rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal
offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the
offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [in short ‘the Evidence Act’]. Converse
is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental
__________
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent
officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant
statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or
applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal
position. … Under these circumstances, what is required to be
seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously
prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal
case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case
depending on its own facts and circumstances .”
A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Depot Manager, A.P. SRTC
v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya [(1997) 2 SCC 699 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 548]
(SCC pp. 704-05, para 8) analysed the legal position in great
detail on the above lines.”
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
15.In the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Eastern
Coalfields Limited’ s case [cited supra], wherein it was held as follows:-
“13. We would notice that this is a case where there is a
criminal case against the respondent. The appellant(s) as
employer also launched disciplinary proceedings. It is
undoubtedly true that this Court has taken the view that when
the charges are identical and give rise to complicated issues of
fact and law and evidence is the same, it may not be
appropriate to proceed simultaneously in disciplinary
proceedings, along with the criminal case. The rationale behind
the principle largely is that the employee who is facing the
disciplinary proceeding would necessarily have to take a stand.
This in turn would amount to revealing his defence and
therefore prejudice the employee in the criminal proceedings.
No doubt, this Court has laid down that it is not an absolute
embargo and the principle is one to be applied based on the
facts of each case. ”
( Emphasis supplied by this Court)
__________
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
16.On reading and re-reading of the above ratios of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is amply clear that there cannot be any strait-jacket
formulae as to when stay has to be granted and when not to be granted, and
such decision has to be taken based upon the facts and circumstances of each
cases. Further, when the charges are identical in nature in both proceedings,
and the possibility of prejudicing his defence in a criminal case, then that is
also a valid ground to stay the disciplinary proceedings. With the above legal
principles and touch stone, let us proceed with the facts involved in the
instant case.
17.In the instant disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was issued
with 3 charges. The first charge is that, by his act of conspiracy with the first
accused and by his act of abetment, he had brought disrepute to the police
nd
force. The 2 charge is that, he spoke with one of the accused viz., Abdul
Munaff through his cell phone for more than 44 times and thereby, has
rd
abetted the commission of offence. The 3 charge is that, he was having close
association with some of the persons, who were involved in similar criminal
cases. Coming to the charge in the criminal proceedings, which are more or
less the same.
18.According to the charge in the criminal proceedings, the petitioner
__________
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
being a Grade-I police constable, to do away the deceased, and in furtherance
of conspiracy, on instructions of the first accused, he has distributed the
money to the other accused. Therefore, the sum and substance in both the
proceedings viz., disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings is in
respect of conspiracy and abetting to commit offence. As rightly contended
by the learned Senior Counsel, if he takes defence in the disciplinary
proceedings so as to establish that he has not at all abetted or was not a part
of a conspiracy, then there is every possibility for the prosecution in the
criminal proceedings to tutor their witness so as to sabotage the defence.
19.Nextly, coming to the documents, the Disciplinary Authority has
relied 20 documents. Almost all the documents are the documents which are
very much relied by the prosecution in the criminal proceedings. Therefore,
any question put in respect of these documents naturally would directly
prejudice his defence in the criminal proceedings.
20.Coming to the witnesses, the official witnesses mentioned in the
disciplinary proceedings are also witnesses in the criminal proceedings and
some of the witnesses are none other than the co-accused of this petitioner.
Therefore, if the accused is being examined as a witness in the disciplinary
__________
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
proceedings there may be a situation where even prior to establishing the
guilt by the prosecution, forcing the accused to respond the prosecution case,
which directly violate the Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
21.In such view of the position, this Court is of the impregnable view
that, in a given fact situation of the instant case, where both criminal
proceeding and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set
of facts, if the disciplinary proceeding is allowed to continue, it would
definitely prejudice the defence of the petitioner in the Criminal proceedings.
Therefore, this Court finds valid reason to interdict the instant disciplinary
proceedings. At the same time, this Court is cognisant of the importance of
conclusion of disciplinary proceedings expeditiously in the interest of the
efficient administration and good governance. Further, this could be achieved
through early disposal of the pending criminal case.
22.Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is partly allowed by directing
the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance pending
disposal of the criminal case pending on the file of the Additional District and
Sessions Judge No.II, Salem in SC.No.188 of 2024. However, the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge No.II, Salem is directed to dispose of
SC.No.188 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, so as to proceed with the
__________
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
disciplinary proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are also
closed.
31-08-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KMI
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police
Headquarters, Salem City Police, Salem.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Police
Annathanampatty Range,
Salem City, Salem.
3. The Additional District & Sessions Judge No.II,
Salem.
__________
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )

2026:MHC:3563
WP No. 32627 of 2024
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KMI
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN
WP No. 32627 of 2024
AND
WMP NOS. 35470, 35471 & 35473 OF 2024
31-08-2026
__________
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 03:09:53 pm )