1 2025:CGHC:51788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5801 of 2023 Manaru Mandavi S/o Jhagadu Mandavi Aged About 32 Years R/o 25, School Para, Nahakanar, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), Official Address - Constable Batch No. 769, Rakshit Kendra Kondgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 3 - Inspector Jevisha Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned suspension order dated 6/9/21 issued by SP Kondagaon. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.16 18:59:13 +0530 2 10.2 That, Honble Court may kindly be pleased to order for crossexamination of complainant and witness by newly appointed impartial Presenting officer, as current Presenting officer has left statement of Complainant and witness uncrossed, and is working as representative of Appointing Authority. 10.3 That, Honble Court may kindly be pleased to order the Departmental enquiry taken on issuing Charge sheet be kept in abeyance till the criminal trial is concluded. 10.4 That, Honble Court may kindly be pleased to order Respondents to take final decision on Departmental enquiry after criminal trial is concluded as charges and evidence are identical in both. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is serving in the Chhattisgarh Police Department, Kondagaon District, as an Assistant Constable. On 03.09.2021, an FIR (Crime No. 319/2021) was lodged against the petitioner by one Ajobati Hebar, an ex adhoc employee of the same Police Station, alleging that the petitioner had sent her an obscene video via WhatsApp on 02.09.2021, which she allegedly showed to four other persons before deleting it. The FIR was registered under Sections 509B IPC and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 3 ‘IT Act’) despite there being no electronic or material evidence and the allegations being based solely on hearsay. On 06.09.2021, the petitioner was suspended and line-attached by order of the Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police initiated a departmental enquiry and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 17.03.2022. The complainant, while giving statements in the departmental enquiry, has been avoiding testimony in the trial Court, causing repeated adjournments and harassment to the petitioner. The complainant had also been seeking employment in a manner similar to the petitioner and herself admitted that she contacted the petitioner months after the alleged incident. The Presenting Officer has failed to properly cross-examine the witnesses or the complainant, leaving material statements uncrossed. The petitioner, a Class 5 pass-out tribal person, is technically inexperienced and only recently purchased a smartphone. His colleagues, who managed technical settings for him, were never examined as witnesses despite his request. 3. In view of the above, the petitioner is being subjected to criminal and departmental proceedings based on uncorroborated allegations, without proper consideration of evidence or witnesses, causing undue harassment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that following the suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 06.09.2021, a 4 departmental enquiry was initiated on the same date. However, despite the considerable passage of time, neither has the suspension order been revoked, nor has the departmental enquiry been completed. This prolonged delay has caused uncertainty and hardship to the petitioner, who is unable to resume his official duties fully and is subjected to prolonged administrative limbo. 5. It is further noted that the State Government has issued a circular dated 27.06.2024, directing that departmental enquiries are ordinarily to be completed within a period of one year from initiation. In view of this directive, the respondent authorities are hereby directed to ensure that the departmental enquiry concerning the petitioner is completed expeditiously. The petitioner is also directed to fully cooperate in the departmental enquiry proceedings. It is made clear that failure to cooperate by the petitioner may necessitate an extension of the period granted by this Court for completion of the enquiry. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is presently receiving only half of his salary as subsistence allowance, which has caused him financial hardship and adversely affected his livelihood. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the totality of the circumstances, it is observed that in addition to being deprived of full salary, the petitioner is receiving a meager subsistence 5 allowance, which is insufficient to meet his basic needs. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to consider the issue of the petitioner’s subsistence allowance and ensure that an appropriate and reasonable amount is disbursed, so as to alleviate the financial hardship faced by the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall also be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh