2025:CGHC:49065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11395 of 2025 1 - Umashankar Tiwari S/o Late Aakharam Tiwari Aged About 62 Years Working As Assistant Accountant At Branch Hasaud Of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, R/o Patrakar Colony, Ward No. 64 Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Office At Nehru Chowk, Sahkar Bhawan, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer For R/2 : Ms. Seema Verma on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivatava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. The petitioner by way of this petition assails action of respondent No. 2 in issuing direction to the Nodal Officer for lodging of FIR. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.09.26 10:52:33 +0530 petitioner has been suspended on the allegation that he has pilfered an amount of Rs. 4,96,375/- from the recovery of loan amount from the farmers. He would further submit that though departmental inquiry has not been initiated still, respondent No. 2 has issued direction to the Nodal Officer to lodge FIR against the petitioner, therefore he would pray for allowing the petition. 3. The registration of FIR does not require departmental inquiry as the criminal law and service law occupy different field. The object of criminal law is to punish who has committed offence and the purpose of departmental inquiry is to punish for misconduct of an employee during the course of employment. Both the law work at different field, therefore, I am of the view that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in issuing direction of lodging of FIR. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the action of respondent No. 2. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. It is for the Investigating Agency or the competent Court of law to inquire into the matter in accordance will law. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore