1 2025:CGHC:2582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 319 of 2025 1 - Madhav Singh S/o Late Mohar Singh Aged About 53 Years Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector Police Station Ramanujnagar District - Surajpur (C.G.) R/o Devipur Post Surajpur P.S. Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home/ Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Police Station and Post Rakhi Atal Nagar New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General of Police (I.G.P.) Office Inspector General Of Police Ambikapur District - Ambikapur (C.G.) 3 - The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police Surajpur District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Presenting Officer Inspector Police Line Surjapur District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on the basis of criminal case instituted against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.01.30 18:50:48 +0530 2 Prevention of Corruption Act, charge-sheet has been filed and criminal trial was initiated against the Petitioner and on the basis of said criminal trial a departmental inquiry was also initiated. About 6 witnesses of both the cases are same and one and if evidence of witnesses in the departmental inquiry would be concluded before the conclusion of the criminal trial, it will be prejudice to him. Reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by this Court on 13.7.2023 in the matter of Ishwar Prasad Lahre v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No.4526 of 2023. 2. In the instant case, if we look into the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, it would clearly reflect that the allegations are the same that are leveled in the criminal case as well. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, particularly, the First Information Report 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. 3. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22 had laid down certain guidelines and where it has been specifically held that in the event if the issue involves complicated question of law and facts, if the evidences are similar, if not identical, it would be desirable to stay the disciplinary proceedings. For ready reference paragraph 22 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-under: 3 “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 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." 4. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V., 4 (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. 5. 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 issues has categorically held that the 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 evidences in preceding case are common. The said principle of law has been re- iterated 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. 6. A fact which needs to be considered at this stage is the set of witnesses cited by the Department in the departmental inquiry and the list of witnesses in the criminal case. A perusal of the two in the present case would reveal that the list of witnesses and evidences are similar and the nature of allegations in the criminal case as also in the charge- sheet are also same. In again a recent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. Inspector General of 5 C.I.S.F. in case being C.A. No.7130/2009 decided on 1.8.2019 has categorically held that the two proceedings can go simultaneously except where the witnesses and the evidences are same which in the instant case appears to be same. 7. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid legal position, as it stands for, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case also keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraphs, since the witnesses in the two proceedings are similar if not identical, in the interest of justice it would be more appropriate, if the evidences in the departmental inquiry is deferred till the evidences or witnesses in the criminal case of those witnesses who have been cited in the departmental inquiry, are examined, which would include the recording of the statement of the delinquent himself who should not be compelled to depose in the departmental inquiry ahead of the evidence on behalf of the department in the criminal case is completed. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the judicial pronouncement as it stands, the present writ petition if taken into consideration, it would reveal that for proving the charges which have been leveled against the petitioner in the departmental charge-sheet, the witnesses if not all, most of them would be the same who are also the witnesses in the Criminal Court. 9. Under the circumstances, 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 petitioner being adversely affected. Since the most of witnesses are 6 common in the two proceedings and in case the witnesses who are common before the two proceedings are examined in the departmental inquiry ahead of their statements being recorded in the criminal case, undoubtedly the defense of the present petitioner (the accused in the criminal case) would get disclosed and can have an adverse bearing in the criminal case detrimental to the interest of the delinquent (the petitioner). 10. For all 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 respondent-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. 11. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the proceedings of departmental inquiry is directed to be kept in abeyance till recording of the evidence of the aforesaid 6 witnesses who are same and one in both the proceedings. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh