The Allahabad High Court has stayed departmental proceedings initiated against a government employee, Sunita Devendra @ Sunita Kureel, who is facing criminal prosecution on serious charges including murder, kidnapping, and causing the disappearance of evidence.
A single-judge bench of Justice Manish Mathur, while granting the interim relief, observed that there was “prima facie… force” in the petitioner’s argument that the departmental inquiry, being based on identical facts and evidence as the criminal trial, should not proceed.
Case Background
The petitioner, Sunita Devendra, was implicated in Case Crime No. 334 of 2018, facing charges under Sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the Indian Penal Code. Following her incarceration, she was placed under deemed suspension under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
She was later reinstated on 26.04.2019, primarily on the ground that the criminal case was likely to take a significant amount of time to conclude. Subsequently, on 19.09.2022, the disciplinary authority itself stayed the departmental inquiry, acknowledging that “the nature of allegations and evidence in the departmental as well as criminal proceedings were identical.”
However, after a charge-sheet was filed in the criminal case, a fresh order was passed on 01.05.2023 placing the petitioner under suspension again. This was followed by an order on 02.11.2023 re-initiating the departmental proceedings, and an order on 03.12.2023 rejecting her representation against the inquiry. The petitioner challenged these three orders before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Adv Alok Mishra submitted that the authorities had passed the fresh orders without recording any reason for taking a view contrary to their earlier, well-considered decisions to reinstate her and stay the inquiry.
The counsel argued that since the departmental proceedings are identical to the criminal charges, it would be “beyond the jurisdiction of departmental proceedings to give any finding with regard allegations levelled under the Indian Penal Code.” Regarding the suspension, it was argued that the authority failed to justify its reversal and did not consider the petitioner’s objections. The state was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.
Court’s Order
After hearing the arguments, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s case. Justice Mathur noted in the order, “Prima facie, submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration.”
The Court has granted the state-respondents three weeks to file a counter-affidavit. Listing the case for 25.09.2025 for further arguments specifically on the point of suspension, the High Court passed an interim order staying the inquiry.
“Until further orders of this Court, the departmental proceedings re-initiated against the petitioner in terms of order dated 02.11.2023 shall remain stayed,” the order directed.
