Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2513 of 2025 1 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Assistant Grade-2, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o Quarter No. M- 63, Avinash Sun City, Daldal Shivni, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Through Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Behind Bus Stand, Depot No. 01, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The President District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 13-08- 2025
Decision
Order on Board 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned charge sheet dated 24-10-2024 and initiation of subsequent departmental enquiry against the petitioner with respect to disciplinary proceeding. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2. The brief facts of the present writ petition is that the petitioner in the instant case was working as a Assistant Grade-II at Chhattisgarh Consumer 2 Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur. An FIR has been registered against the petitioner on 06-04-2021 for the offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and consequently charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur. On a same set of allegation a charge sheet was also issued on 17-05-2021 along with a list of witnesses and a list of documents for initiation of departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner has challenged the initiation of departmental enquiry and charge sheet dated 17-05-2021 in WPS No.6883 of 2024 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 25-11-2024 directing the respondent-authorities to differ with the disciplinary proceeding initiated till all the witnesses in the departmental enquiry who were also witnesses in the criminal case, are examined before the Trial Court in the criminal case against the petitioner and to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. Meanwhile another charge sheet dated 24-10-2024 was issued to the petitioner with respect to certain irregularities and embezzlement of Government fund which also part of the same FIR of Crime No.50/2021 registered at Devendra Nagar, Raipur for which the criminal case and earlier departmental enquiry was initiated, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the same set of allegation the criminal case as well as the earlier departmental enquiry, the subsequent charge sheet has been issued though there is no separate FIR, however, the present charge sheet has been generated from the same FIR and same set of allegation as mentioned in the FIR of Crime No.50/2021. He would further submit that three witnesses in the criminal case as well as of the subsequent charge sheet are also same, i.e., Jagatram Nirala, Devendra Kumar Dewangan and Harish Chandra Deepak are the witnesses in both these proceedings. This is going to cause severe prejudice to the criminal case which has been initiated. The criminal case is at the stage of 3 examination of the witnesses which is yet to be completed. He would also submit that, in the event the witnesses are called upon to make their statement before the departmental inquiry and the petitioner is asked to cross-examine these witnesses, the very defence of petitioner in the criminal case would get disclosed. The prosecution as such may take the advantage of the same much before the trial in the criminal case is initiated and therefore, his right is going to be substantially prejudiced. Thus, counsel for petitioner prays for staying of the departmental inquiry till the criminal case is finalized. He would also refer to the order dated 25-11-2024 passed in WPS No.6883 of 2024 in which the departmental enquiry proceeding in the earlier charge sheet has been deferred till the examination of the witnesses before the trial Court in criminal case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Sate would submit that the plain reading of the allegations and the charges levelled in the charge sheet by which the petitioner would be subjected to a departmental inquiry would show that the petitioner through the charge sheet is prosecuted for the misconduct that he has committed in service and the FIR in the criminal case which has been lodged against him is for the offence which otherwise falls under the provisions of the IPC. He would also submit that the standard of proof required for establishing the two proceedings are entirely different and thus both the proceedings can go simultaneously without affecting each other. It is the further contention of the respondents that the departmental inquiry can be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities whereas in the criminal case it is to be proved beyond reasonable doubts which is required. Thus, merely because of the examination of the witnesses in the departmental inquiry by itself would not adversely affect the interest of the petitioner in the criminal case. 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 4 of the two proceedings, one under the departmental enquiry and other under the criminal trial. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated the fact that even though there is no legal bar but in the event of the question of facts and the nature of evidences to be adduced in the two proceedings are the same, to avoid unnecessarily further complications, the departmental enquiry should be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case. 6. In the instant case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the charges levelled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings are the same. 7. As early as in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat GoldMines Ltd. And Anr. , 1999 3 SSC 679 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22 had laid down certain guidelines where it has been specifically 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-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 5 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 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. 8. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. & Ors, (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 & Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Others reported in 2016 9 SSC 491. 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. The 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. 9. This Court also in a recent writ petition of similar nature has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (Died) through LRs. vs. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the similar set of facts and issues 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 evidences in preceding case are common. The said principle of law has been re-iterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many other decisions previously and subsequently in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Neelam Nag and Others, 2016 9 SSC 491. 10. A fact which needs to be kept in mind or that needs to be considered at this 6 juncture is the set of witnesses cited by the Department in the departmental enquiry and the list of witnesses in the criminal case. A perusal of the two in the present case would reveal that the list of witnesses and evidences are similar and the nature of allegations in the criminal case as also in the charge sheet are also same. In again a recent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General of C.I.S.F in case no. C.A. No. 7130/2009, decided on 01.08.2019 has categorically held that the two proceedings can go simultaneously except where the witnesses and the evidences are same which in the instant case appears to be same. 11. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid legal position as it stands for, this Court is of the opinion that in the present case also keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the preceding paragraphs, since the witnesses in the two proceedings are similar, if not identical, in the interest of justice it would be more appropriate, if the evidences in the departmental enquiry are deferred till the evidences or witnesses in the criminal case of those witnesses who have been cited in the departmental enquiry, are examined, which would include the recording of the statement of the delinquent himself who should not be compelled to depose in the departmental enquiry ahead of the evidence on behalf of the department in the criminal case is completed. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the judicial pronouncement as it stands, the present writ petition if taken into consideration, it would reveal that for proving the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the departmental charge-sheet, the witnesses if not all, most of them would be the same who are also the witnesses in the Criminal Court 13. Under the circumstances, if the witnesses are permitted to be examined in the disciplinary proceedings before they are examined in the criminal Court, 7 there is all likelihood of the evidences of the petitioner being adversely affected. 14. For all 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 respondent- authorities to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner be deferred till all the witnesses in the departmental enquiry who are also witnesses in the criminal case, are examined before the Trial Court in the criminal case against the petitioner and to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge