1 2026:CGHC:16224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2726 of 2026 1. Amit Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Kishore Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o D-52, Rama Life City, In Front Of International School, Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent Of Police Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4. Additional Superintendent Of Police/ Enquiry Officer Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5. Presenting Officer Station House Officer, Police Station - Palari, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mishra and Ms. Neeta Tulsani Thawani, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.04.10 19:01:18 +0530 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08 /04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court for perusal. (ii). That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to disposed of writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are stayed till examination of complainant and other witnesses, who are common witnesses in departmental enquiry and criminal case against the petitioner, before the trial Court and to proceed further in the departmental enquiry thereafter. (iii). That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the Police Department and holding the post of Inspector. A memo of charge was issued to petitioner leveling three charges against him, stating that petitioner while posted as Station House Incharge of Police Station Balodbazar, in the course of investigation of Crime Nos.260/2024, 261/2024, 262/2024, 598/2024 registered for commission of offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 34 IPC, had involved himself in such activities which amount to violation of Regulation No. 64 of the Police Regulations. Along with charge memo, petitioner has also been supplied list of witnesses to be examined in the 3 course of inquiry. Charge-memo is issued pursuant to registration of FIR against petitioner under Crime No.260/2024 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that most of the witnesses in 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 registered against petitioner, are one and same. If petitioner has to cross-examine the witnesses in the departmental enquiry before they are examined in criminal case, then the defence which is to be raised by petitioner in criminal case would be open, which will adversely affect his right to defend in criminal case and therefore, the witnesses namely Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das. who are also the witnesses in 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. 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 & 4 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 WP(S) No. 6706/2025 decided on 18.07.2025. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State vehemently opposes 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. He, however, does not dispute submission of learned counsel for petitioner that witnesses namely Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das, are common in both the proceedings. The petitioner in this writ petition has not specifically pleaded as to how common witnesses if examined in departmental enquiry first, will adversely affect his defence in criminal case 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the police department holding the post of Inspector. Departmental enquiry is initiated against him, charge-memo 5 was issued to him arising out of offence registered against him under FIR No.260/2024 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code, in which after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet/ final report on 29.12.2025. 6. Perusal of list of prosecution witnesses annexed along with charge-memo issued in departmental proceedings to petitioner, which is filed as Annexrue P/5 to writ petition, as also the charge sheet filed in criminal case registered against petitioner, would show that Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das are the witnesses to the departmental enquiry proceedings as also in criminal case. 7. Departmental enquiry, from perusal of the documents enclosed along with writ petition i.e. charge-memo and charge-sheet filed by the police after investigation, appears to be based on criminal case registered against petitioner. About nine witnesses in both the proceedings are one and same, those witnesses may record their statement before the authorities in departmental enquiry proceedings, as also before Court 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. 6 8. 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 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 7 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." 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 8 decided on 01.08.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the same principle as discussed above. 12. In the case at hand, the petitioner who is a Inspector in the Police Department is facing a departmental enquiry as well as a criminal trial. In both the cases about nine witnesses 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 petitioner for criminal case would be open and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there are sufficient grounds to allow the prayer of petitioner in this case. 13. For the foregoing discussion, it is directed that the departmental proceedings may go on, however, the respondent authorities shall not examine witnesses namely, Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das. who are also witnesses in criminal case, till they are examined in criminal case registered against the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-