1 2026:CGHC:6877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1323 of 2026 Vivek Kumar Yadav S/o Bhuneshwar Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Kotra Road, Ward No. 39, Near Dashrath Paan Shop, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh Presently Posted As Head Constable, E Cadre, Camp - Police Line, Raipur, 15th Battalion (India Reserve) Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Dhanora, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commandant 15th Battalion (India Reserve), Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Dhanora, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inquiry Officer 15th Battalion (India Reserve), Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Dhanora, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. Nupur Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 06/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.13 18:50:29 +0530 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the im- pugned letter memorandum dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued against the petitioner and any further proceedings of deparmental enquiry D.E. no. 9-A/2025 may kindly be stayed till the final disposal of the Criminal Case No. 797/2021 for of- fences under Section 294,506,452 & 427 IPC (Crime No. 502/2021) and another in criminal case no. 1774/2021 for the of- fence under Section 354,354(D) & 506 IPC (Crime No. 1598/2021), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Head Constable, E Cadre, Camp- Police Line, Raipur, 15th Battalion (India Reserve) Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, at Dhanora, District Bijapur (C.G.). Based on some complaint lodged against him a criminal case was registered bearing Crime No. 502 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506, 452 & 427 of IPC. Subsequently, the same complainant has lodged another complaint before the concerned Police Station upon which another crime bearing crime no. 1598 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354 (D) & 506 of IPC has been registered against him. Criminal case is still pending consideration. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that based on the criminal case registered against the petitioner, departmental enquiry is also started and charge-sheet is issued by the authority to the petitioner and now the case is fixed for preliminary hearing. She further submits that about eleven witnesses are common 3 in criminal case as also in the departmental enquiry pending against him, and if the witnesses who are also witnesses in criminal case is to be examine and cross-examined in departmental enquiry proceedings, defence which is to be taken in criminal case would be open and it will adversely affect his right to defend in criminal case and, therefore, till the witnesses are examined before the criminal court the departmental enquiry proceedings be stayed. She also submits that if entire departmental enquiry could not be stayed then respondent authorities be directed not to examine the witnesses who are common in departmental enquiry as also in the criminal case. 3. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. Reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. & Ors. Reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag & Ors. Reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 and also in the case of Sobant Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. In WPS No. 6706/2025 decided on 18.07.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that according to circular issued by State, departmental enquiry is to be concluded against the Govt. servant within specified time. However, upon asking she places copy along with the writ petition. Many witnesses as stated by the counsel for petitioner appears to be witnesses in criminal case as also in departmental enquiry. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents place on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the Police Department holding the post of Head Constable, E Cadre, Camp - Police Line, Raipur, 15th Battalion (India Reserve) Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Dhanora, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. Departmental enquiry is initiated against him. Charge-sheet Annexure P-2 was issued on 12.04.2024 by police authorities after investigation on 12.04.2024 based on the report lodged by the complainant namely Jyoti Singh bearing crime no. 502/2021 against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 294, 506, 452 and 427 of IPC. 7. Perusal of charge sheet issued in criminal case and in the departmental proceedings filed as Annexure P-2, P-7 and Annexure P- 18 would show Inspector Manishchandra Nagar, Shankar Singh Chhatri, Smt. Jyoti Singh (complainant), Vijay Singh Thakur, Aparajita Singh Thakur, Vishesh Agrawal, Pratish Singh, Samund Rankar, Rooplal Patel, Vastav Singh Thakur and Boxer Nishad 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. Eleven witnesses in both the proceedings are common. Those witnesses are to be examined before the authorities in the departmental enquiry proceedings as also before 5 the Court of competent jurisdiction in criminal case. If the petitioner is to cross-examine those witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, before they are examined before the Court in the 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 6 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." 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 7 except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings are common. 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, the petitioner who is a Head Constable in the Police Department is facing a departmental enquiry based on two criminal cases registered against him for alleged commission of offence under Section 294, 506, 452 & 427 of IPC and other for alleged offence under Section 354, 354 (Ä) and 506 of IPC. Eleven witnesses in both the proceedings i.e. criminal case and departmental enquiry are common and if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine those witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, the defence which is setup by the petitioner for the criminal cases 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 the witnesses namely, Inspector Manishchandra Nagar, Shankar Singh Chhatri, Smt. Jyoti Singh (complainant), Vijay Singh Thakur, Aparajita Singh Thakur, Vishesh Agrawal, Prattish Singh, Samund Rankar, Rooplal Patel, Vastav Singh Thakur and Boxer 8 Nishad who are also witnesses in the criminal case till they are examined in the criminal cases. 15. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to that extent. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE alfiza