1 2025:CGHC:1341-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 896 of 2024 Anjhor Manjhi S/o Shri Ravilal Manjhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Baradoli, P.S. Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home And Police AfÏairs, Mahanandi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.09 18:22:18 +0530 2 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7542 of 2024 (Anjhor Manjhi vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is presently posted as Head Constable bearing No. 143 at Police Station Civil Lines, Balodabazar Bhatapara. The appellant rendered his services with utmost honesty and sincerity and to the satisfaction of his superiors. Looking to the good track of record, and excellent output of his affords, the respondent authorities, promoted the appellant from the post of Constable to Head Constable. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that during the posting at Balodabazar, the Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar registered an offence under Crime No. 260 of 2024 and lodged FIR against Ashish Shukla, Shirish Pandey, Moty @ Pratush and other co-accused's for commission of offence punishable under Sections 384, 389, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He also submits that during the investigation the accused Shirish Pandey was arrested in the crime concern and upon his memorandum statement, he named the appellant being a co-accused alleging that the appellant was in direct contact with the accused and was supplying information to the culprits. Upon the aforesaid statement of the said accused the Police Station City Kotwali arrested the appellant in Crime No. 260 of 2024 and sent him behind bar. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that on being proceeded with the judicial remand the appellant was suspended with immediate effect and a preliminary enquiry conducted by the additional Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar. Wherein, the said authority found the appellant suspicious and recommended for disciplinary proceedings. A bare perusal of the preliminary enquiry report and the list of witnesses has been described wherein as many as 07 witnesses were arried in the list of witnesses in the enquiry proceedings. Similarly, a bare perusal of final report prepared by the concerning Police under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant is charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201 and 34 of the IPC under Crime No. 260 of 2024 wherein, the list of witnesses has been mentioned in column no. 16 in which 06 witnesses out of 07 witnesses have been listed in the criminal case as of the witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings and the charges labelled against the appellant are identical in both the proceedings. 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as shown from the charge-sheet issued by the respondent No. 3 it can be seen that the charges alleged on the appellant in the criminal case as well as the disciplinary proceedings are same and the witnesses in the criminal case as well as the witness in the disciplinary proceedings are also same. He further contended that, if the witnesses are permitted to be examined in the disciplinary proceedings before they are examined in the criminal Court, there is all likelihood of the evidences of the appellant being adversely affected. Since, all the witnesses are common in both the proceedings and in case the witnesses who are common before the two 4 proceedings are examined in the departmental enquiry ahead of their statements being recorded in the criminal case, undoubtedly the defence of the present appellant would get disclosed and can have an adverse bearing in the criminal case detrimental to the interest of the delinquent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would that in an identical issue, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in WPS No. 4101 of 2023 allowed the petition holding that the set of witnesses cited by the department in the departmental enquiry and the list of witnesses in the criminal case are similar and the nature of allegations in the criminal case as also in the charge-sheet are also same. He further submits that the learned Single Judge passed the order impugned blatantly ignoring the facts and circumstances that departmental enquiry initiated against the appellant is on the absolute same premise of the criminal proceeding. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He would submit that the appellant is a Constable in the Police Department. He was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 384, 389, and 212 read with Section 34 of IPC along with other co-accused. He would further submit that the allegations made in the criminal case against the appellant and the allegations described in the departmental proceeding are entirely different. He would also submit that there are only 08 witnesses in the departmental enquiry, whereas in criminal case, there are 36 witnesses. He would contend that the departmental enquiry has been initiated with 5 the allegations that the appellant provided shelter to the main accused of the crime and without obtaining permission from the department visited a foreign country Nepal. He would further contend that in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines and held that in the event if the issue involves complicated questions of law and facts, evidence is similar, if not identical, the allegations are similar and witnesses are also similar, the Court should stay the departmental proceedings, but in the present case nothing is similar or identical, therefore, no case is made out for interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 10. Sub-clause (2) (3) and (4) of Police Regulation-64 reads as under:- “64. General Condition of Service – Every candidate for an appointment in the police should be made acquainted, prior to appointment, with the general conditions of police service: (2) He shall faithfully and honestly use his best abilities to fulfill all his duties as a police ofÏcer. (3) He shall conform himself implicity to all rules which shall, from time to time, be made for the regulation and good order of the service, and shall cultivate a proper regard for its honour and respectability. (4) He shall submit to discipline, observe subordination and promptly obey all lawful orders.” 11. The learned Single Judge held that in the matter of Dandeshwar Banjare (supra), the coordinate Bench has relied on the judgment passed 6 in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down guidelines in paragraph No. 22 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 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 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 offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during 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 being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account 7 of the 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, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” 12. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 6366, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously and such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The relevant paragraph No. 10 is reproduced herein below:- “10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words: “(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously. (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent ofÏcer as well as the 8 employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. (iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings in common.” 13. In the light of the judgment quoted above, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order held that it is quite vivid that the appellant is one of the accused in Crime No. 260 of 2024. The allegations are that on 06.07.2023, the accused persons threatened one Dharmendra Kumar Das @ D.K. Das to implicate in a scandal and extorted Rs. 15 lakhs. One iphone-15; debit card of Bank of Baroda; pass-book of SBI of the appellant, pass-book of Bank of Baroda, Branch Bhatapara of the appellant; ATM Cards of both the Banks were seized from the possession of the appellant. The prosecution has cited 36 witnesses. Along with the articles of charge, a list of 08 prosecution witnesses has been provided to the appellant. Learned Single Judge further held that from a perusal of articles of charge and final report, it is quite vivid that the allegations against the appellant in disciplinary proceedings and criminal case are not similar and witnesses are also not common, therefore, in the opinion of learned Single Judge, the case of the appellant is not identical to the case of Dandeshwar Banjare (supra), thus, no case is made out for interference. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while 9 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan