1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6608 of 2025 1 - Sumat Ram Dahariya S/o Shri Ramlal Dahariya Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Jora, Post- Bhatgaon, P.S.- Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Kamal Kishore Mahilane S/o Shri Bharat Lal Mahilane Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill.- Dhobnideeh, Post- Bhatgaon, P.S.- Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Bilaspur Range, Near Nehru Chowk, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police (Sp) Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Sarangarh, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Dy.S.P) Office Of Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Departemental Enquiry Officer/sub Divisional Officer Police (Sdop), Sarangarh, Distt.- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - Presenting Officer Inspector/station House Officer, P.S.- Kedar, Distt.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.18 18:51:29 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 03/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners till the examination of the complainant in the criminal case against the petitioners and prayed for the following reliefs:- “(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 petitioners before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are stayed till examination of complainant Mahendra Kumar Sahu, who is a common witness in departmental enquiry and criminal case against the petitioners, before the trial Court and to proceed further in the departmental enquiry thereafter. (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioners for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by them as also 3 cost of the litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, an FIR of Crime No. 07 of 2025 has been registered against the petitioners on 27.01.2025 by the Economic Offence Wings, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in the year 2018) with the allegation that, the petitioners have demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 7,000/- from the complainant Mahendra Kumar Sahu for filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case registered against him. He would further submit that on the same set of allegations, a departmental enquiry is also initiated against the petitioners, in which the witnesses and allegations are the same. Since, in the departmental enquiry the witnesses, who are to be examined in the criminal case, are the same and in case, if their statements are recorded in the departmental enquiry ahead of the evidence being recorded in the criminal case, the very defence of the petitioners before the criminal court would get disclosed and it may have an adverse barring to the criminal case and the same may also be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. He thus prayed for stay of the departmental enquiry proceedings during the pendency of criminal case. He would rely upon the order dated 17.06.2025, passed by this court, in WPS No. 4760 of 2025 and the orders passed by the coordinate bench of this court dated 01.07.2020, in WPS No. 2386 of 2020, 21.06.2021, in WPS No. 2653 of 2021,01.09.2022, in WPS No. 3864 of 2018, 21.09.2023 in WPS No. 7453 of 2023 and 14.01.2025, in WPS No. 192 of 2025. 4 1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that, the petitioners have not annexed the copy of charge sheet of the criminal case to clarify that the charges leveled in the criminal case and the witnesses in both the proceedings i.e. the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are the same. It transpires that till date the charge sheet in criminal case has not been filed, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations and the witnesses in both these proceedings are one and same and any prejudice would cause to the petitioner or it would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. He would further submit that the allegation against the petitioners is quite serious and is squarely falls within the ambit of misconduct under the service regulations, and therefore, irrespective of the pendency of the criminal case, the disciplinary proceedings also simultaneously go on. There is no embargo as such totally prohibiting the two proceedings to go on simultaneously and it would all depends upon the facts of each case and as such there cannot be a straight jacket formula for staying the disciplinary proceeding. In the criminal case, the charges are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, however, in the departmental proceeding, the charges are to be proved on preponderance of probabilities. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao” 2012 (1) SCC 442. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material 5 annexed with the petition. 3. True it is that, this Court as well as coordinate Bench of this Court have passed various orders, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the issue that the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are not allowed to be run together, and till the evidence of the witnesses recorded in the criminal case, the further proceedings of the departmental enquiry be kept in abeyance, but there is a condition that the charges as well as the witnesses should be one and the same in both these proceedings. 4. In the present case, only the FIR has been registered on 27.01.2025 against the petitioners vide Crime No. 07 of 2025 by the EOW, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is no material produced on the record about filing of the charge sheet in the said offence registered against the petitioners. In absence of any charge sheet, it cannot be determined that the allegation/charges and the witnesses in both the proceedings i.e. criminal case and the departmental enquiry against the petitioners are one and same and they are entitled for protection as has been ordered by this Court and the coordinate Bench of this Court by the aforesaid cited orders by the petitioners. At present, the EOW/ACB, Raipur may file the charge sheet against the accused persons/ petitioners or may file the closure report against them, therefore, in such condition, the proceedings of departmental enquiry cannot be stayed at this stage. 6 5. Accordingly, I do not find any scope of interference in the present writ petition to grant relief to the petitioners, and therefore, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved