1 CGHC010281872026 2026:CGHC:31463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5541 of 2026 Ganesh Manjhi S/o Munnaram Manjhi Aged About 26 Years R/o Gram- Barsoor, Ward No. 7, P.S. Barsoor, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Inspector General Of Police Crpf, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 2 - Dy. Inspector General Of Police Crpf Bijapur, Distt. Bijapur, C.G. 3 - Commandant 153 Bn. Crpf Chinnakodepal, Distt. Bijapur, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G.I. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 23/07/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned Charge sheet dated 13/06/2026 Annexure P/1. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.23 15:28:57 +0530 2 ii. That this Hon'ble court may direct to respondents to stay the further proceedings till the decision of this case or till the petitioner get bail by any court of law or he becomes capable of effectively defending himself, iii. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently in jail in connection with Crime No.02/2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Dantewada. During the pendency of the criminal case, the disciplinary authority has issued a charge-sheet initiating departmental enquiry against him. It is contended that the petitioner, being in custody, is not in a position to effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings, collect and produce relevant documents, engage with the defence witnesses or properly instruct his defence representative. Consequently, continuation of the departmental enquiry during his incarceration would result in denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity of defence and would offend the principles of natural justice. He further submits that unless the petitioner is released on bail or is otherwise able to effectively participate in the enquiry, irreparable prejudice would be caused to him and the enquiry may culminate in an ex parte decision. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel places reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State 3 Bank of India & others Vs. Neelam Nag and another {(2016) 9 SCC 491}. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in connection with Crime No. 02/2026, and a charge-sheet has already been filed against him before the competent criminal court. It is further submitted that, consequent upon the registration of the said criminal case, the competent disciplinary authority has also initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the applicable service rules. Learned counsel contends that there is no legal infirmity in the continuation of the departmental enquiry merely because the petitioner is presently in judicial custody. It is submitted that the petitioner's incarceration, by itself, does not deprive him of the opportunity to effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings. 4. I have heard learend counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and documents. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submission and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is presently in jail and prima facie may not be in a position to effectively defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings, hence, the petition is allowed and the chargesheet as also the consequential proceedings are kept in abeyance at this juncture. The respondents are at liberty to continue with the 4 Departmental Enquiry as and when the petitioner released from the jail. The petitioner is directed to intimate the disciplinary authority as and when he will release from jail. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep