1 2026:CGHC:8198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3671 of 2025 Chhagan Lal Verma S/o Vikram Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o 170 Ward No. 09 Mahrumkhurd, Mahrumkala, Khairagarh Distt. Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Senani 21th Battalion (B/r) Chhattisgarh Sashastra Bal, Karkabhat Distt. Balod (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Senani And Investigative Officer 21th Battalion (B/r) Chhattisgarh Sashastra Bal Karkabhat Distt. Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13/02/2026 1. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.17 14:55:03 +0530 2 “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records per- taining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the departmental enquiry started by respondents, against the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Constable at Unit- F Samvay Camp Mohadhar District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.). Based on some complaint dated 19.05.2023 lodged against him a criminal case was registered bearing Crime No. 244 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, Police Station Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) filed charge-sheet against the petitioner bearing Session Trial No. 263 of 2023. Based upon the complaint respondent no. 2 suspended the petitioner and thereafter departmental enquiry proceedings is also started against him and issued charge memo to petitioner on 10.03.2025 vide Annexure P/3. 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 memo is issued by the authority to the petitioner and now the case is fixed for preliminary hearing. He further submits that three witnesses are common 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 3 examine and cross-examine 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, departmental enquiry proceedings be stayed. He also submits that if entire departmental enquiry could not be stayed then respondent authorities be directed not to examine the witnessess who are common in departmental enquiry as also 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 Sobant Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. In WPS No. 6706/2025 decided on 18.07.2025. 5. 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. It is fairly submitted that three witnesses as stated by the counsel for petitioner appears to be witnesses in criminal case as also in departmental enquiry. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents place on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the Police Department holding the post of Constable, at Unit- F Samvay 4 Camp Mohadhar District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.). Departmental enquiry is initiated against him. Charge-sheet Annexure P-2 was issued on 10.03.2025 by police authorities after investigation based on the report lodged by the complainant Surita Gond (prosecutrix) bearing crime no. 244/2023 against the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 and 354 of IPC. 8. Perusal of charge sheet issued in criminal case and charge memo in the departmental enquiry proceedings filed as Annexure P-2, and Annexure P-3 would show Meena Netam, Vishnu Dev Sahu and Sarita Gond(complainant) are witnesses to the departmental enquiry proceedings as also in the criminal case. 9. 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. Three witnesses in both the proceedings are common. Those witnesses are to be examined before the authorities in the departmental enquiry proceedings as also before the Court of competent jurisdiction in criminal case. If the petitioner is to cross-examine those three 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. 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 5 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 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 6 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) . 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. 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 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. 7 14. In the case at hand, the petitioner who is a Constable in the Police Department is facing a departmental enquiry as also criminal case registered against him for alleged commission of offence under Section 376 and 354 of IPC. Three 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. 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, Meena Netam, Vishnu Dev and Sarita Gond who are also witnesses in the criminal case till they are examined in the criminal case. 16. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to that extent. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE alfiza