1 2025:CGHC:12355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6215 of 2023 1 - Piyush Verma S/o- Late Vinod Verma Aged About 38 Years Branch Manager (Suspended), Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch- Pasta, Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, R/o- Behind District Hospital, Darripara, Kabir Ward, Ambikapur, P.S.- Manipur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office- Mahadevghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager (Operation-2) Cum Disciplinary Authority Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Mahadevghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, At Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sushil Tigga Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Abhishek Badiyaar Presenting Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.03.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to defer from the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner till the conclusion of criminal case/trial pending before the JMFC, First Class, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, C.G. 10.2 That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the same set of facts and evidence, a criminal case as well as a departmental enquiry is going on against the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier under the respondents and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Branch Manager. At the relevant time, he was posted at Branch Kamari, Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj. He would contend that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 9.3.2022 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of IPC and the petitioner was placed under suspension. He would contend that on account of the registration of FIR, a departmental enquiry was initiated. He would also submit that the allegations in the article of charge and the charge-sheet are almost similar and the witnesses are also common. He would argue that an interim application was moved by the petitioner for the stay of the departmental enquiry and the same was allowed vide order dated 10.11.2023. He would further argue that out of 25 prosecution 3 witnesses, 24 witnesses have already been examined and the criminal case is at its fag end. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the allegations are also not similar. He would contend that the witnesses in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are not common. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), in paragraph 22 of the report held as under:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental Proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on an identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the -4- criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of the offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if were stayed on account of pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 6. In the present case, on account of the registration of an FIR, a departmental enquiry was initiated. A perusal of the charge-sheet issued in the criminal case and the article of charge would show that the allegations are almost similar and the witnesses are also common. Further, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 24 witnesses have already been examined and the next date of hearing before the learned Court below is 2.4.2025. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), the petition is allowed. The department would be at liberty to continue with the departmental proceedings after the conclusion of the criminal case. The interim order granted earlier is 5 hereby vacated. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi