1 2026:CGHC:1125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11529 of 2025 1 - Jaikumar Verma S/o Kejuram Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o W.R.S. Colony, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Superintendent Of Police (Rail) Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Deeksha Gouraha, Dy. Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08 /01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents to keep the departmental enquiry proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge sheet (Annexure P/1) in abeyance till the pendency of Criminal Case No. 28633/2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.); 10. 2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstaces of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given;” 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the Police Department and is posted as Head Constable (Arms) No. 472. Charge memo was issued to him leveling two charges against him stating that the petitioner has violated Regulation No. 64 (4) of the Police Regulations and the second charge was that, the suspended Head Constable (Arms) is involved in criminal activities and has violated Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. 3. He contended that the charge-sheet is issued based on the complaint made by Mahendra Singh Mansar who is also the complainant in Criminal Case No. 28663/2025, based upon which F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No. 440/2025 for alleged commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He contended that most of the witnesses in the charge-memo issued by the respondent department and the charge-sheet submitted by the police after investigation before the Court of competent jurisdiction in a criminal case are one and same. If petitioner has to cross-examine the witness in the departmental enquiry, who are also the same witness in the criminal case, then the defence which is to be raised by the petitioner in the criminal case would be open, which will adversely affect his right to defence in criminal case and therefore, the witnesses who are also the witness in the criminal case may not be permitted to examine in the departmental enquiry proceedings till those witnesses are examined before the Trial Court in the criminal case. 4. In support of his 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 3 Sobant Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WP(S) No. 6706/2025 decided on 18.07.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State vehemently opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is no bar for continuing both the proceedings i.e. the departmental enquiry and the criminal case parallely. It is for the petitioner to demonstrate that the nature of allegations and the witnesses are one and same. The petitioner in this writ petition has not specifically pleaded the aforementioned fact and therefore, no relief as prayed for can be granted. In support of her contention, she places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Lekhchand Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine CHH 459. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the police department holding the post of Head Constable (Arms). The departmental enquiry is initiated against him, charge-memo was issued to him on 14.07.2025 based on the report lodged by the complainant Mahendra Singh Mansar bearing Crime No. 440/2025 against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, the police authorities submitted charge-sheet/final report on 15.05.2025 for the alleged commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 8. Perusal of the charge-memo issued in the departmental proceedings filed as Annexrue P/1 would show that Mahendra Singh Mansar (complainant), Rajkumari Minj, Manoj Minj, Bhupendra Singh Mansar, Tirath Sahu and Prasan Minj are witness to the departmental enquiry proceedings as also in the criminal case. Perusal of the articles of charge-memo would show 4 that when the presence for attendance of the police officials was called for, the petitioner was found absent and thereafter, it was informed that the petitioner was arrested in the criminal case registered under Section 420 of the IPC. Based upon which, the preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter, charge-memo was issued to the petitioner for conducting departmental enquiry. 9. The departmental enquiry and the criminal case from perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition i.e. the charge-memo and the charge-sheet filed by the police after investigation appears to be based on the criminal case registered against the petitioner. About six witnesses in both the proceedings are one and same, those witnesses may record their statement before the authorities in the departmental enquiry proceedings as also, the Court may be the same and if the petitioner is forced 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 which will adversely affect the defence of the petitioner in criminal case. 10. In the case of Capt. 10. 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 5 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." 11. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu (Supra) 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 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. He 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. 12. 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 6 both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and evidence in both the proceedings are common. 13. 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. 14. In the case at hand, the petitioner who is a Head Constable in the Police Department is facing a departmental enquiry as well as a criminal case. Both the cases are based on the complaint made by the complainant Mahendra Singh Mansar for alleged commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC. About six witnesses in both the proceedings are one and the same 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 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. 15. For the foregoing discussion, it is directed that the departmental proceedings may go on, however, the respondent authorities shall not examine the witnesses namely, Mahendra Singh Mansar (complainant), Rajkumari Minj, Manoj Minj, Bhupendra Singh Mansar, Tirath Sahu and Prasan Minj who are also witnesses in the criminal case till they are examined in the criminal case. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed to that extent. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.01.09 17:52:46 +0530