1 2025:CGHC:2345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 192 of 2025 1 - Dileshwar Pathare S/o Late Shri K.R. Pathare Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Dongakohroud, Tahsil And Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Inspector General of Police (IGP) Office Of Inspector General of Police, 32 Bungalow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent of Police (SP) Office of Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Additional Superintendent of Police (Addl. S.P.) / Enquiry Officer Office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Presenting Officer, Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station Ranitarai, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 15:24:09 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2024 the petitioner was working on the post of Constable in Police Station - Patan, Distt. Durg and during his service period, on 10.9.2024 an FIR under Sections 4, 6 & 10 of CG Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 and also Section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was registered against the petitioner in Police Station Patan, Distt. Durg (CG) and after completion of two months on 5.11.2024 the investigating office/SHO, PS Patan, Distt. Durg submitted a final report/challan before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, Distt. Durg. Meanwhile, on 9.10.2024 respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Durg on the same allegations issued a charge sheet against the petitioner and initiated departmental enquiry against him. In the said charge sheet, most of the prosecution witnesses are the same who are also witnesses in the criminal case namely Shri Anil Kumar Sahu, SHO, Patan, Distt. Durg; Shri Jalaluddin Qureshi, SI, PS Patan, Distt. Durg and Constable 561 Shri Homan Sahu, PS Patan, Distt. Durg. If the witnesses are examined in the departmental case prior to recording of their evidence in the 3 criminal case, certainly it would prejudice the defence of the petitioner whereby the petitioner would suffer. Considering this aspect of the matter, as many as six different Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in similar matters stayed the whole departmental enquiry proceedings till examination of the witnesses in the criminal case registered against those petitioners. Hence this petition for similar relief. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 to stop the whole departmental enquiry procedure against the petitioner till examination of all the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case registered against the petitioner and pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, Distt. Durg. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on the same facts and similar set of evidence criminal trial as well as departmental inquiry are initiated against the 4 Petitioner and if the witnesses will be examined in the departmental inquiry it will cause great prejudice to the criminal trial and the Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss, as such the proceedings of departmental inquiry is required to be stayed. 4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State submits that it will not make any difference if these witnesses will be examined at first instance in the departmental inquiry and later on their statements would be recorded in the criminal trial. 5. As regards, the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is by now well settled proposition of law that there is no legal bar for continuation of the two proceedings, one under the departmental inquiry and other under the criminal trial. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated the fact that even though there is no legal bar but in the event of the question of facts and the nature of evidence to be adduced in the two proceedings are the same. To avoid unnecessarily further complications, the departmental inquiry should be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case. 5 6. In the instant case, if we look into the allegations leveled against the Petitioner in the criminal case and the charges level against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, it would clearly reflect that the allegations are the same that are leveled in the criminal case as well. Perusal fo the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, particularly the F.I.R. and the list of witnesses in support of the prosecution before the trial Court and the list of witnesses enclosed along with the departmental charge-sheet for the departmental inquiry would show that most of witnesses are common in the two proceedings. 7. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636 which has also been relied by the Counsel for the Petitioner. The aforesaid view of the Supreme Court has further been reiterated again in the case of State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491. In all these cases, the principle of law so far as stay of the departmental inquiry, in the event of the nature of allegations and the witnesses remained the same have not been diluted. The Courts have very emphatically held that for stay of the departmental inquiry, there can be no straight 6 jacket formula which can be spelt out, it would all depend upon the facts of each case. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench has also in a recent writ petition of similar nature has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through LRs. v. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the similar set of facts and issued has categorically held that the departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial except where both the proceedings care based on the same set of facts and the evidence in preceding case are common. The said principle of law has been reiterat4d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many other decisions previously and subsequently in the case of State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the writ petition as of now can be disposed of with a direction to the Respondents - authorities to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner be deferred till all the witnesses in the departmental inquiry who are also witnesses in the criminal case, are examined before 7 the Trial Court in the criminal case against the Petitioner and to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. 10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through LRs. v. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142 as well as in the matter of State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491, the proceedings of the departmental inquiry is deferred till the witnesses in the criminal case are examined. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh