Telangana High Court
Dr. Jyotindra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 26 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.2988 OF 2018
DATE: 26.03.2026
Between :
Dr. Jyotindra Kumar Singh represented by his GPA holder
Dr. R.P. Mahapatra,
Visakhapatnam
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Represented by its Special Chief Secretary to Government
Health Medical and Family Welfare (VC) Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...(a) To set aside the proceedings in Memo No 3093/VC/ 1/2016-l dated 17.3.2017 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government Health Medical and amily Welfare (VC) Department (b) and consequently direct the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities to undertake the investigation and to take the matter to its logical conclusion before the 2 competent court and (c) by issuance of Writ of Mandamus..........."
2. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Anti-corruption Bureau appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3.1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a qualified medical professional who completed his super specialty in Cardiothoracic Surgery from the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) after securing admission through an All India selection process. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of his studies in the year 2014, respondent No.4, who was then functioning as the Head of the Department, abused his official position and demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner. It is alleged that, under compulsion, the petitioner transferred certain amounts to the bank account of respondent No.4 on multiple occasions. 3.3. The petitioner further contends that at the time of the final examination held in July, 2014, respondent No.4 demanded further payment, and upon the petitioner's failure to comply, deliberately failed him in the examination, notwithstanding his otherwise satisfactory academic performance.
33.4. It is further alleged that, apprehending exposure of his actions, respondent No.4 lodged FIR No.846 of 2014 against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.22395 of 2014, wherein the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) was also impleaded as a respondent.
3.5. Subsequently, FIR No.7 of 2015 was registered by the ACB, City Range-I, Hyderabad, based on a complaint lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The matter was thereafter placed before the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
3.6. The Director General, ACB, by report dated 02.04.2016, recorded that a prima facie case was made out against respondent No.4 and that the matter warranted detailed investigation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, despite the pendency of criminal proceedings and submission of a final result under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the Government, through Memo No.3093/VC/1/2016 dated 17.03.2017, transferred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) without recording any reasons.
3.7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in similar circumstances, where the ACB had submitted a report against a public 4 servant, the Government had entrusted the matter to the Commissioner of Enquiries through G.O.Rt. No.758 dated 05.09.2015. Challenging such action, W.P. No.2212 of 2017 was filed, and this Court granted interim suspension of the said Government Order. 3.8. In these circumstances, contending that the impugned memo results in dilution of criminal proceedings and is arbitrary, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned memo is liable to be set aside on the grounds that the impugned memo does not disclose any reasons or material justifying the transfer of the matter from criminal investigation by the ACB to a departmental forum. The report of the Director General, ACB dated 02.04.2016 clearly records the existence of a prima facie case warranting detailed investigation. In the absence of recorded reasons, the impugned action is arbitrary.
4.2. Further under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960, read with Rule 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989, reference to the Tribunal is permissible only when the Government forms an opinion that the case is not fit for criminal 5 prosecution and requires departmental enquiry. No such opinion has been formed or recorded in the present case.
4.3. Once criminal proceedings have been initiated and a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed before a competent Court, the executive cannot, by an administrative order, divert the matter into a purely departmental forum in a manner that undermines the criminal process.
4.4. While it is settled law that criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings may proceed simultaneously, the executive cannot interfere with or obstruct criminal prosecution without cogent reasons supported by material.
4.5. The impugned memo appears to shield a public servant against whom serious allegations of corruption have been found prima facie by the ACB, thereby undermining public confidence in the integrity of public administration. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned memo be set aside.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the ACB submits that prosecution cannot proceed without sanction from the Government. It is stated that, upon investigation, a trail of funds was identified and a charge sheet was prepared. However, the Government declined to grant sanction for prosecution and instead referred the matter for disciplinary 6 proceedings, thereby stalling the criminal prosecution. It is therefore prayed that appropriate directions be issued.
6. I have perused the material placed on record and carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel.
7. The record clearly indicates that FIR No.7 of 2015 was registered by the ACB, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Special Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. The Director General, ACB, by report dated 02.04.2016, recorded the existence of a prima facie case warranting further investigation. Despite the same, the Government, without recording any reasons or forming the statutory opinion required under the relevant provisions, transferred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Such action reflects non application of mind and is contrary to the statutory framework.
8. It is a settled principle of law that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings operate in distinct fields and may proceed simultaneously. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings and that disciplinary proceedings cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution. Similarly, in P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765, the Apex Court reiterated 7 that where allegations disclose commission of a criminal offence, the criminal law must be allowed to take its course. Further, in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, (2001) 2 SCC 330, it was held that administrative actions suffering from arbitrariness or non application of mind are liable to be set aside in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the present case, the impugned memo does not disclose any reasons; it fails to record the statutory satisfaction required for declining sanction for prosecution and for referring the matter to the Tribunal; and it has the effect of diverting and diluting the criminal proceedings already set in motion. Such an exercise of administrative power is arbitrary, contrary to the statutory framework, and violative of the settled principles governing administrative discretion.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that Memo No.3093/VC/1/2016 dated 17.03.2017 is vitiated by non application of mind, insofar as it pertains to the issue of grant of sanction for prosecution, and is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and settled legal principles.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Memo No.3093/VC/1/2016 dated 17.03.2017 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC) 8 Department is hereby set aside, insofar as it relates to non consideration of the requisition for grant of sanction for prosecution. It is clarified that the departmental proceedings as per the impugned memo, being distinct in nature, may continue independently, in accordance with law. The question of grant of sanction for prosecution shall be reconsidered afresh by the competent authority, based on the report dated 02.04.2016 submitted by the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, strictly in accordance with law.
12. Having regard to the fact that the matter has been pending since the year 2016, the competent authority is directed to take an appropriate decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 26.03.2026 MRKR