1 CGHC010323742026 2026:CGHC:39326-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 811 of 2026 Vimlesh Dubey S/o Shri Sarju Prasad Aged About 37 Years R/o Posted As Inspector, Reserve Line, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Director General Police (DGP) Police Head Quarters Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General Of Police (IGP) Sarguja Range, I.G. Office, Ambikapur Distt Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent Of Police (SP) SP Office, Korea, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 5. Shri Vivek Shukla Additional Superintendent Of Police Ambikapur, Inquiry Officer, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 6. Manju Pandey D/o Late Shri Jagat Narayan Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Chhattisgarh P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.10 10:29:38 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge Order On Board (08.09.2026) Per K. R. Mohapatra, Chief Justice 1. This Intra Court Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 09/07/2026 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3737/2022 whereby the prayer of the Appellant, to quash the order dated 21/04/2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent No.2 – The Director General of Police (DGP), Police Head Quarters, District Raipur (CG) and to direct the Respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry until the criminal case against the Respondent No.6-Manju Pandey is concluded, has been rejected. 2. Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was issued with a charge-sheet with the imputation that on 28/01/2014 he married to one Manju Pandey (Dubey) and had further been in extra-marital relationship with one Akansha Sharma and thereafter married to one Dr. Pratiksha Tiwari on 08/12/2020. Thus the same is in violation of the Rule 22 of the Civil Services 3 (Conduct) Rules. Hence, the Appellant who was serving as Inspector at the relevant time, was put under suspension. 3. He further submits that the Appellant never married Manju Pandey. When the marriage with one Ms. Prateeksha Tiwari was being solemnized on 08/12/2020, the local police intervened on the complaint of said Smt. Manju Pandey. Thus, the rituals of the marriage could not be completed. The Appellant had also lodged an FIR against the said Manju Pandey stating that by producing forged and fabricated documents, she claims to be his wife. On the basis of the allegation of said Smt. Manju Pandey, the departmental enquiry has been initiated. Although charge memo has been served but the Appellant has not yet submitted his defence statement. Assailing the FIR lodged by the Appellant against Manju Pandey, she moved this Court in WPCR No.215/2021, wherein the State took a stand that Manju Pandey, submitting forged and fabricated documents claims to be the wife of the Appellant. Ultimately the Writ Petition (WPCR No.215/2021) filed by Manju Pandey (Respondent No.6) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06/07/2026 (Annexure A/2). The departmental enquiry having been initiated against the Appellant on the same set of allegation should await conclusion of criminal case, as the allegation of bigamy has already been disapproved by this Court in WPCR No.215/2021, taking note of the stand taken 4 by the State to the effect that the Respondent No.6 relied upon forged and fabricated documents with regard to marriage with the Appellant. It is, thus, submitted that learned Single Judge did not take into consideration this material aspect while passing the order impugned herein. The case law taken into consideration by learned Single Judge was with regard to the FIR lodged against the delinquent employee against whom the disciplinary proceeding was pending. But in the instant case the Appellant has lodged FIR against Manju Pandey- Respondent no.6. As such, the ratio decided therein is not applicable to the instant case. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order (Annexure A/1). 4. Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 4 vehemently objects to the submissions made by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the Appellant. He submits, it is the trite law that a departmental proceeding initiated on the same set of facts and allegations as that of a criminal proceeding should await conclusion of criminal trial. However, in the instant case, the allegations are different and the departmental proceeding was not initiated only on the ground of bigamy but on other allegations made against the Appellant. The first allegation is of bigamy as alleged by Smt. Manju Pandey. Secondly, the Appellant had extra-marital relationship with a lady namely 5 Ms. Akansha Sharma and thirdly, the Appellant threatened two witnesses namely, Aastik Shukla and Shubham Das not to adduce evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, the contention of the Appellant that a departmental proceeding should await till conclusion of criminal trial holds no water. He further submits that due to pendency of the writ petition as well as writ appeal, the departmental enquiry could not proceed further. Re-appreciation of materials is not permissible in an Intra Court appeal. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 5. Mr. Naveen Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6 submits that the order impugned herein is reasoned one and learned Single Judge at para - 7 of the impugned order has vividly discussed the contention of the Appellant (writ petitioner). He drew attention to the following observations of learned Single Judge at para 7 of the impugned order:- “7. In the present case, the petitioner has not challenged the competence of the authority issuing article of charge. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking relief to stay the department proceedings till criminal case registered against the Respondent No. 6 is concluded. In the article of charge there are 03 different allegations against the petitioner i.e. first allegation deals with bigamy; in second charge, allegation has been made against the petitioner to the effect that he maintained physical relations suppressing his marital status and the last allegation is that the petitioner pressurized one of the witnesses to not disclose the occurrence. In the writ petition and rejoinder, the petitioner has made an attempt to demonstrate that marriage between the petitioner and the Respondent No.6 was never solemnized on 28.01.2014 and he did not perform second marriage with Dr. Prateeksha Tiwari on 6 08.12.2020. It is also stated that according to the statement of the witnesses, the complainant remained unmarried till 2016-17. The petitioner has not disputed the allegations No. 2 and 3 and no material has been placed on record to establish that the allegations No. 2 and 3 are baseless or false. It is an admitted fact that an article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 26.02.2021 making 03 allegations which have been referred in Para- No. 8.1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C against the Respondent No. 6 on 07.01.2021 and an order was passed to register an F.I.R. against Respondent No. 6 on 06.02.2021 by the Competent Criminal Court. As criminal case has been launched against the Respondent No. 6, she is required to establish her innocence before the Court concerned. The allegations made in the article of charge against the petitioner are entirely different from allegations made against the Respondent No. 6.” 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.6, therefore, submits that the Appellant having not challenged the competency of the disciplinary authority to issue articles of the charges and that he has only prayed for stay of disciplinary proceeding till conclusion of the criminal trial, the writ petition has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and perused the entire documents and materials placed before us. 8. On perusal of the materials on record it is apparent that the criminal trial and the disciplinary proceedings are not based on same set of facts and allegations. Although there are some similarities in allegations made in the criminal case and departmental enquiry, but there is a mark difference with regard to some of the relevant imputations made, more 7 particularly that the Appellant had threatened two of the witnesses not to adduce evidence in the departmental enquiry, which is not the allegation in criminal case. Further, the allegation of extra-marital relationship with Ms. Akansha Sharma is also not the allegation in the criminal case. The allegation of bigamy may be similar in both the criminal case and departmental enquiry, but that is not the only basis of initiation of the disciplinary enquiry. 9. We perused the impugned order Annexure A/1 and find that the same to be well reasoned one, which suffers from no infirmity. As such, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 10. Accordingly the writ appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) ( Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice Khatai/Prashant