Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.02.10 11:53:21 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:4110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 574 of 2025 • Monika Gupta W/o Ravi Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Pani Tanki Sai Kripa Building Bhilai Thana Chavni District - Durg (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General Of Police Police Headquarter Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Ajay Kumar S/o Baijnath Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Opposite Rashtriya Vidhyalay Baikunth Nagarh Thana Chavni District - Durg Bhilai (C.G.) 4. Superintendent Of Police Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 22/01/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner was posted as Head Constable in Reserve Line, Durg is facing a criminal prosecution on account of FIR lodged against the petitioner on 19.08.2024 for the 2 offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on an allegation that he has received of Rs. 1,78,000/- for securing a job for daughter of complainant Ajay Kumar. When the aforesaid money demanded by the complainant the petitioner has issued a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-which was subsequently, dishonored. The petitioner is also facing a departmental enquiry on the basis of aforesaid allegation by the Departmental Enquiry Committee with an allegation that in order to provide job to the daughter of the complainant Ajay Kumar, he has received of Rs. 1,78,000/-, as such accordingly a charge- sheet has been issued against the petitioner with an allegation that while receiving aforesaid amount and he has committed illegality and which is against the Rules and Regulations as well as the duties which is misconduct as per para 64(2) of Police Regulation Act as well as against the Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rule 1965, as such departmental enquiry initiated against him. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner prays for following relief(s:)- 10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to allow the petition and call for the records of this case. 10.2. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set-aside the departmental charge-sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the same set of the evidence both the criminal proceedings as well as the 3 departmental enquiry are going on and the witness are also same and one in both the proceedings and as such if the departmental enquiry would be conducted before conclusion of the criminal case it will prejudice the case of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, as such the proceedings of departmental enquiry is required to be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023 in the matter of Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors decided on 04.12.2023, on the basis of aforesaid case learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it will cause great prejudice to the petitioner if in the criminal trial witnesses will be examined before the departmental enquiry in the first instance. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that it will not make any difference if this witnesses will be examined at the first instance in the departmental enquiry and later on their statement will be recorded in the criminal trial and place reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka and Another vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563. 5. As regards, the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is by now well settled proposition of law that there is no legal bar for continuation of the two proceedings, one under the departmental inquiry and other under the criminal trial. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated 4 the fact that even though there is no legal bar but in the event of the question of facts and the nature of evidence to be adduced in the two proceedings are the same. To avoid unnecessarily further complications, the departmental inquiry should be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case. 6. In the instant case, if we look into the allegations leveled against the Petitioner in the criminal case and the charges level against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, it would clearly reflect that the allegations are one and same that are leveled in the criminal case as well. Perusal fo the documents
Decision
enclosed along with the writ petition, particularly the F.I.R. and the list of witnesses in support of the prosecution before the trial Court and the list of witnesses enclosed along with the departmental charge-sheet for the departmental inquiry would show that most of witnesses are common in the two proceedings. 7. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636 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 State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491. In all these cases, the principle of law so far as stay of the departmental inquiry, in the event of the nature of allegations and the witnesses remained the same have not been diluted. The Courts have very emphatically held that for stay of the departmental inquiry, there can be no 5 straight jacket formula which can be slept-out, it would all depend upon the facts of each case. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through LRs. v. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the similar set of facts and issued has categorically held that the departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the preceding are common. The said principle of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many other decisions previously and subsequently in the case of State Bank of India v Neelam Nag. (2016) 9 SCC 491. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the writ petition as of now can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner be deferred till all the witnesses in the Criminal Trial who are also witnesses in the departmental enquiry, before the Trial Court in the criminal case against the Petitioner and to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. 10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through LRs. v. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142 as well as in the matter of State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491, the 6 proceedings of the departmental inquiry is deferred till the witnesses in the criminal case are examined. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s) instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE vaishali