1 2026:CGHC:23796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8768 of 2022 1 - Leela Ram Sahu S/o Durga Prasad Sahu Aged About 32 Years Currently Working As Constable At Police Station Lal Bag Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), R/o Village Lalipara, Khargahna, Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Deptt Of Home And Police, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr.Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 30/09/2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure- P/1) and thereby stay the further proceedings till the final conclusion of the criminal case registered against the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” -2- 3. It appears that a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on account of registration of FIR for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC. The petitioner is working on the post of Constable in the Police Department. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in a criminal case, the matter has been settled between the parties and petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 09.09.2024. He would contend that as there was matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and matter has been compromised, therefore, respondent authorities may be directed to drop the departmental inquiry as foundation of the disciplinary inquiry was registration of FIR. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents/State would oppose submissions. He would submit that there were serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to harassment of his wife and therefore, departmental inquiry was contemplated against him. He would contend that a departmental inquiry and criminal case may go simultaneously. He would further contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The foundation of the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner was an FIR registered against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC. The said criminal case has already been compromised 3 between the petitioner and his wife and the judgment has been placed on record but the departmental inquiry is still pending. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that there was matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and same has been settled and judgment of acquittal has already been passed in favour of the petitioner, therefore, respondents are directed to consider this aspect of the matter and take appropriate decision within a period of 60 days from today. 9. The interim order granted earlier shall continue for a period of 60 days or till decision is taken by the respondents. 10.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha