1 2025:CGHC:13272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4931 of 2024 1 - Lomesh Kumar Yadav S/o Kriparam Yadav Aged About 35 Years Posted As New Constable No. 1069 At Police Station - Durg, District Durg (C.G.), R/o Borsi Bhatha Ward No. 50, Police Station - Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Of Police, Durg District Durg, (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police (Ajak), Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Station House Officer Police Station - City Kotwali, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.21 17:36:12 +0530 2 Respondent Authorities to keep the Departmental Proceedings in abeyance till the finalization of the Criminal Trial pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Crime No. 513/2023. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 2. (a) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is posted as New Constable No. 1069 at Police Station Durg, District Durg (C.G.). On 01.04.2022 in the morning at about 8.45 AM one Tularam Dhurve resident of Ward No.39, Diprapara Durg committed suicide in his house. During the merg enquiry it was alleged that deceased Tularam Dhurve was posted as home guard at Durg. In the year 2018 he had received Rs. 10,00,000/- from different persons to provide government job for the post of CAF in Chhattisgarh Police. The aforesaid amount had been given to the accused persons Kriparam Yadav and Lomesh Yadav (petitioner) by the deceased in the name of providing government job. When they did not get the government job, then the deceased demanded money back, but the accused persons did not refund the amount, due to which the deceased committed suicide on 01.04.2022. (b) On the basis of aforesaid merg enquiry, the police of Police Station City Kotwali Durg registered FIR bearing Crime No. 513/2023 on 03.09.2023 for offence punishable under Section 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code against Kriparam Yadav and Lomesh Yadav (petitioner). Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 23.06.2024 by the respondent No.3 and the enquiry proceedings are being conducted. That, the Respondent Authorities are continuing with 3 the Disciplinary Proceedings and the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts is also pending consideration before the Competent Court 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 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. 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 4 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 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 5 law has been reiterated 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 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/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul