1 2025:CGHC:50818-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 701 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Managing Director Cum Chairman, Head Office, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh., 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office First Floor, Vivek Complex, Sangam Gali, Ambikapur, District -Surguja Chhattisgarh., 3 - Branch Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Sedam, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh., ... Appellants versus 1 - Alok Kumar S/o Manoj Singh Aged About 25 Years Officer Grade-I (Under Suspension) At Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) R/o Village Marsaiti, P.O. And P.S. Teghri, District -Begusarai (Bihar), ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Sabhyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For State : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sabhyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 3470/2018 (Alok Kumar Vs. State Rajya Gramin Bank through its Managing Director and others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent herein. 3. By way of this appeal, the appellants are seeking following reliefs:- “a. Set aside the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3470 of 2018, to the extent it directs the departmental proceedings initiated against the Respondent to remain stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial; b. Be further pleased to modify, set-aside, or clarify the directions contained in the order dated 09.05.2018, passed in WPS No. 3470/2018, to the extent that it indefinitely stays the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent, and instead be pleased to grant 3 liberty to the Appellant Bank to proceed with the departmental inquiry against the respondent from the stage it was stayed, in accordance with law, notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal trial; c. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur, District Surguja, for expeditious and time-bound disposal of Criminal Case No. 330/2017, arising out of Crime No. 36/2017, within suchperiod as may be deemed fit and reasonable by this Hon'ble Court, and be further pleased to direct that in the event the trial is not concluded within such time, the Appellant Bank shall be permitted to proceed with the departmental inquiry from the stage it was stalled; d. Pass any further orders, directions or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and institutional discipline; and FOR WHICH ACT OF THE KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL AS DUTY BOUND WOULD EVER PRAY.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and is contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.A. No. 394 of 2025, 4 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, this Court was pleased to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the facts of the present case are pari materia to those considered in W.A. No. 394 of 2025 (Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank vs. Sandip Kumar Singh), and the ratio laid down therein is squarely applicable to the case at hand. The learned counsel also contends that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account the binding precedent and proceeded to disposed of the writ petition without properly appreciating the legal position and the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, though opposed the appeal, could not distinguish the judgment in W.A. No. 394 of 2025, nor could he point out any material difference in the factual or legal matrix that would warrant a different outcome. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The following observation was made in the order which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “12. It is an admitted fact that there is no legal bar for both the proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental to go on simultaneously. The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. In the case at hand out of 66 prosecution witnesses only statement 5 of 14 witness have been recorded and 8 years have been passed and on account of order of this court the departmental enquiry has been stalled. It is also to be seen that in the departmental enquiry total 100 charges were framed against the writ petitioner and, according to the Bank, most of the charges are different than the criminal charges. Even, the witnesses in the departmental proceedings are also different besides there appears to be some common witnesses. 13. The order in question passed by learned Single Judge by stalling the departmental proceedings against the petitioner till the criminal case is finally concluded. In the present case it has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that though the trial has been commenced and out of 66 witness only 14 witness have been examined during the period of 8 years and because of the order in question the departmental proceedings have been stalled whereas in the case of State Bank of India and Others v Neelam Nag & Another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491, the Supreme Court held at para 29 as under:- "29. If the trial is not completed within one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be resumed by the enquiry officer concerned. The protection given to the respondent of keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance shall then stand vacated forthwith upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of this order. " 14. The aforesaid decision has been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. P. Zadenga reported in 2023 (10) SCC 675 and observed that it may be desirable or in certain circumstances advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed 6 pending criminal proceedings but it is not "matter of course". It further held that proceedings to be stayed only for reasonable period of time depending on circumstances of each case. Completion of trail to be construed as completion within reasonable time frame" and the same cannot aid employee, more so per prolongation of trial. Paras 30 and 31 of the aforesaid decision read as under:- “30. Repetitive as it may sound, we reiterate the principle of law enunciated in Nerlam Nag (supra) that the completion of trial must be construed as completion "within the reasonable time frame" and that the clause cannot come to the aid of the employee "more so", for "prolongation on the trial". In the instant case, the completion of the trial concerning the crime registered in the year 1996 is nowhere nearing completion. 31. As a principle of law, we have already observed that a departmental proceeding pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, of course, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee.” 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v Girish V. and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 held that the court has to be mindful of fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indigently or delayed unduly. In the case at hand, it is reported that the enquiry proceedings are pending since last about 8 years. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, the Writ appeal is disposed off with liberty to the appellant/ respondent/ Bank to proceed with the 7 departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner (respondent herein) from where it was stopped pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Bank may proceed in accordance with law and on its own merits.” 8. Upon a careful reading of the judgment passed in W.A. No. 394 of 2025 (Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank vs. Sandip Kumar Singh), we find that the issue involved in the present appeal stands fully covered by the said judgment. The legal principles enunciated therein are directly applicable to the facts of this case. 9. In light of the above, and in view of the binding precedent, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3470/2018 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is allowed in terms of the order dated 24.07.2025 passed in W.A. No. 394 of 2025 (Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank vs. Sandip Kumar Singh). 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vishakha