Vimlesh Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/07/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 2

10.2 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent authority, and direct the respondent authorities not to proceed in the DE until the criminal case against the respondent no. 6 is concluded, in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief / reliefs which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted on the post of Station House Officer at Police Station, Baikunthpur, District Koriya. The respondent No. 6 made a complaint before the Police Headquarters on 05.01.2021 to the effect that the petitioner has performed second marriage and harassed her. Another complaint was made by another lady making allegation that the petitioner maintained relationship suppressing his marital status. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Manendragarh, District Koriya conducted preliminary enquiry with regard to allegation of second marriage. In preliminary enquiry, statements of witnesses were recorded and documents were also collected. In enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had performed marriage with respondent No. 6 on

28.01.2014 in Arya Samaj Mandir. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded. In statement, the petitioner stated that no marriage was solemnized between them and a false compliant has been made. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.01.2021. The petitioner pleaded in Para- 8.3 that he was about to get married with Dr. Pateeksha Tiwari on 08.12.2020 and on said date the police intervened on the basis of complaint of respondent No. 6. It is further 3 pleaded that the documents relied upon by the department like marriage registration certificate, signatures, photographs are forged. It is also pleaded that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC for registration of an F.I.R. against respondent No. 6 on

07.01.2021. The Competent Criminal Court passed order for registration of an F.I.R. against respondent No. 6 on 06.02.2021 and resultantly F.I.R. was registered on 16.02.2021 bearing Crime No. 184/2021 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 469, 471, 474, 384 and 120-B of IPC. The respondent No. 6 filed WPCR No. 215 of 2021 seeking quashment of F.I.R. No. 184/2021 and interim relief was granted vide order dated 24.03.2021. During course of hearing, it is informed that WPCR No. 215 of 2021 filed by the respondent No. 6 has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 06.07.2026. The department initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and article of charge was issued on 26.02.2021 making allegations that : (i)- the petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent No. 6 on 28.01.2014 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur and during life time of first wife, without obtaining prior permission from the department performed second marriage with Dr. Prateeksha Tiwari in Shailgiri, Mahamaya Mandir, Ambikapur and thus his conduct is in contravention to the Rule 22 (1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965; (ii)- The petitioner maintained physical relations with another lady suppressing his marital status and displayed indecent act which is in contravention to the Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and Rules 3 and 11 of Police Regulation Rules and (iii)- The petitioner made false statement with regard to use of Cell Phone of Aastik Shukla @ Laddu 4 and pressurized driver- Shubham Das to not disclose fact with regard to use of vehicle in marriage. Along with article of charge, documents and list of witnesses were also provided to the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application before the Inspector General of Police, Chhattisgarh to stay the further proceedings of departmental enquiry till conclusion of the criminal case registered on his instance and said application was rejected vide order dated 21.04.2022.

3. Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the respondent No. 2 rejected the application moved by the petitioner for stay of departmental proceedings in haste without affording opportunity of hearing. It is also argued that complainant- respondent No. 6 claimed herself to be unmarried in the year 2016-17, therefore, the allegation made in the article of charge is baseless. He would submit that the documents collected by the prosecution like marriage certificate, photographs are forged and based on those documents departmental enquiry cannot be continued against the petitioner. It is also contended that if departmental enquiry proceeds and the petitioner leads evidence, it would hamper the defence of the petitioner in the criminal case. He would submit that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and evidence, therefore, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. It is also argued that if in a criminal case, it is found that the complaint made by the respondent No. 6 against the petitioner is frivolous, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. It is also submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police clearly suggests that the 5 respondent No. 6 is not a married lady and she never performed marriage with the petitioner. He would further submit that the marriage between the petitioner and Dr. Prateeksha Tiwari could not be performed, therefore, the allegation of bigamy is totally false. He would pray to allow this petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate.

5. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 would submit that on complaint of respondent No. 6, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and during course of enquiry, police collected sufficient material against him and thereafter an article of charge was issued on

26.02.2021. He would contend that the police during course of investigation recorded statements of numerous persons and photographs of bride and groom were also collected. Mr. Pandey would further submit that bigamy is not a sole allegation against the petitioner in the article of charge, there are two more allegations (i) a complaint made by another lady with regard to extramarital affairs, and (ii) the petitioner pressurized an important witness of the case to not disclose the facts of the case. Mr. Pandey further submits that in the present case, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, rather on complaint of petitioner, an F.I.R. has been registered against the respondent No. 6. It is argued that in a case where the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts even charges are almost identical, a delinquent employee may make prayer for stay of the departmental proceedings 6 till conclusion of the criminal case. He would submit that in department enquiry, there are serious allegations against the petitioner, whereas in criminal case respondent No. 6 has to prove her innocence and therefore no case is made out for grant of relief as sought for. Mr. Pandey would refer the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others Vs. Rabindra Kumar Bharti reported in (2022)12 SCC 390 and the judgment passed in WA No. 896 of 2024 parties being Anjhor Manjhi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. dated 09.10.2025. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

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

08.12.2020. It is also stated that according to the statement of the witnesses, the complainant remained unmarried till 2016-17. The 7 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.

8. In the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines and held that in the event if the issue involves complicated questions of law and facts, evidence is similar, if not identical, the allegations are similar and witnesses are also similar, the Court should stay the departmental proceedings. The relevant paragraph No. 22 is reproduced herein below:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Department 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 the delinquent criminal employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it case against 8 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 proceeding, 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.”

9. Now coming to the facts of present case in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), the facts of criminal case and the departmental enquiry are entirely different; the allegations are neither similar nor identical; the witnesses are also not similar and therefore, the relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

10. It is also settled principles of law that a departmental enquiry cannot be stayed for an indefinite period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 6366 held that there is no legal bar 9 for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously and such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The relevant paragraph No. 10 is reproduced herein below:- “10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Karntaka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words: (i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously. (ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. (iv) 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 the both the proceedings in common.”

11. In light of the judgments quoted above and the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. The interim order dated 17.06.2022 granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge