1 / 6 2026:CGHC:6595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1373 of 2026 Diwakar Singh Paikra S/o Bulthu Singh Paikra, Aged About 36 Years R/o Sadakpara, Kurda District Janjgir Champa ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Superintendent Of Jail, Central Jail Durg, District Durg C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State : Mrs. Diksha Gauraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. With the consent of both the parties, case is heard finally. 2. Aggrieved by the decision of respondent no. 2 in initiating the departmental inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, when petitioner is already facing criminal trial for the same act and allegations in Session Trial No. 200/2025 arising out of Crime No. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.13 11:15:36 +0530 2 / 6 92/2025 in Police Station Padmanabhapur, District – Durg for the offence under Section 308(2), 308(5), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of BNSS this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the main grievance of petitioner is that petitioner who is working on the post of Jail Warder has been implicated in criminal case no. 92/2025 registered at Police Station Padmanabhapur, District-Durg based on memorandum statement of co-accused. She also submits that respondent department thereafter have initiated departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner on similar allegations as has been leveled against petitioner in criminal case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that witnesses who is listed in the list of witnesses enclosed along with the charge-memo are also witness in the criminal case being co-accused and if those witnesses are permitted to be examined in departmental enquiry than defence which is to be taken by petitioner in criminal case will be open and it will adversely affect the defence of petitioner to be taken in criminal case. She lastly submits that in such situation till the common witnesses are not examined in the criminal case respondent authorities be directed not to examine those witnesses in departmental enquiry proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for State do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner going by the documents that petitioner is facing two proceedings at the same point of time. One is the criminal case and other is departmental proceedings, however she submits that in the departmental proceedings there are only two witnesses, however from the documents of the criminal case it is appearing that those two 3 / 6 witnesses are also the co-accused in criminal case bearing Criminal Case No. 92/2025. She further submits that if this Court inclined to accept the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner then the entire departmental proceedings may not be considered but direction be given not to examine common witnesses. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner while posted as Jail Warder was suspended. Departmental enquiry is initiated against him, charge-sheet Annexure P-1 was submitted by police authorities after investigation on 09.07.2025 based on the report lodged by the complainant in Session Trial No. 200/2025 arising out of Crime No. 92/2025 registered at Police Station Padmanabhapur, District – Durg for the offence under Section 308(2), 308(5), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of BNSS 7. Perusal of charge memo issued in the departmental enquiry proceedings filed as Annexure P-1 would show Ajay Diwan and Pratik Vasnik are witnesses to the departmental enquiry proceedings as also in the criminal case. 8. From perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition i.e. the charge-memo issued by the respondent – department and the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigation, it appears that departmental enquiry initiated against petitioner is based on the criminal case registered against him. Two witnesses in both the proceedings are common. Those witnesses are to be examined before the authorities in the departmental enquiry proceedings as also before the Court of competent jurisdiction in criminal case. If the petitioner is 4 / 6 forced to cross-examine those witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, before they are examined before the Court in criminal case, it may make it open the defence of petitioner before the witnesses and it may adversely affect the defence of the petitioner in criminal case. 9. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22 had laid down certain guidelines and 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 No. 22 of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-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. 5 / 6 (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." 10. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu (Supra). The aforesaid view of the Supreme Court has further been reiterated again in the case of Neelam Nag (Supra). In all these cases, the principle of law so far as stay of the departmental enquiry, in the event of the nature of allegations and the witnesses remained the same have not been diluted. Courts have very emphatically held that for stay of the departmental enquiry, there can be no straight jacket formula which can be spelt out, it would all depend upon the facts of each case. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through Lrs. Vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 13 SCC 142 has observed that both the proceedings i.e. the departmental enquiry proceedings and the criminal case can proceed together except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings are common. 6 / 6 12. The aforementioned principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was further reiterated in the case of Neelam Nag (Supra). In case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector General of C.I.S.F. reported in Civil Appeal No. 7310/2009 decided on 01.08.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the same principle as discussed above. 13. In the case at hand, petitioner who was posted as Jail Warder in Central Jail Durg District-Durg (C.G.) is facing a departmental enquiry based on criminal case registered against him for alleged commission of offence under Section 308(2), 308(5), 111(2)(b) and 3(5) of BNSS. Two witnesses in both the proceedings are common and if petitioner is permitted to cross-examine those witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, the defence which is setup by the petitioner for the criminal case would be open and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there are sufficient grounds to allow the prayer of the petitioner in this case. 14. For the foregoing discussion, it is directed that the departmental proceedings may go on, however, the respondent authorities shall not examine witnesses namely, Ajay Diwan and Pratik Vasnik who are also witnesses in the criminal case till they are examined in the criminal case. 15. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to that extent. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza