1 - Manoj Dewangan S/o Late Jethram Dewsagan Aged About 52 Years Posted As v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Law And Legal Affairs, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2726-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 9 of 2025 1 - Manoj Dewangan S/o Late Jethram Dewsagan Aged About 52 Years Posted As Assistant Grade-3 (Suspended) At Office Of District And Session Judge, Korba,r/o Budhwari Near Gaurishankar Mandir, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Law And Legal Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naws Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - High Court Of Chhattisgrh Through The Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District And Session Judge Korba, District Korba ( C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate & 3. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent/State. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 & 3. 2 2. The present writ appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 7430 of 2024 ,
Decision
whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Grade- III in the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Korba. The offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 201 of I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on 14.08.2015 for misappropriation and embezzlement of the seized amount which was to be deposited in the Government treasury. The petitioner was arrested on 14.08.2015. On 17.08.2015 the respondent no.3 suspended the petitioner under Rule 9(2)(k) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1966 as the petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours. The Departmental Inquiry was also initiated and charge-sheet was issued on 28.08.2015. During the pendency of the criminal case, the respondent no.3 appointed the Inquiry Officer to conduct the Departmental Inquiry. On 11.01.2016 the petitioner moved an application for staying the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry till the final disposal of the criminal trial before the respondent no.3. On 24.03.2018 and 28.06.2018, respondent no.3 issue show cause notice to the petitioner leveling various allegations against him. The petitioner has filed his reply to the show cause notice and then the Departmental Inquiry was initiated, subsequently the Departmental Proceedings case was transferred on 04.09.2024 from Katghora to Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO) Korba which is still pending for consideration. The petitioner had filed the writ petition claiming the relief that till the pendency of the Criminal Case No. 2621 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, the Departmental Proceedings may be stayed as the allegation in both the proceedings are similar and same set of facts. The learned Single Bench after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that continuance of the 3 criminal case as well as Departmental Proceedings simultaneously would be jeopardized and for the same set of allegations he cannot be punished twice. He would also submits that simultaneously Departmental Proceedings cannot run. In view of the order passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 2653 of 2021 (Narad Tamrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh), therefore, impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that criminal proceedings and Departmental Inquiry can run simultaneously as the consideration in both the proceedings are different and in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417, the petition does not have any merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 7. In the disputed facts of the case that the Departmental Proceedings and criminal case running simultaneously against the petitioner, it would not necessary to go into facts of the case, however, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.K. Meena (Supra), also the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Mohd. Yusuf Miyan and others, (1997) 2 SCC 699, Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 and further considering the case of the State Bank of India vs. Neelam Nag. (2016) 9 SCC 491 the law in the field is settled. It is stated that both the proceedings that is Departmental Proceedings the criminal trial can run simultaneously as the consideration criminal trial is to be decided after proof of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the Departmental Proceedings is to be decided on preponderance of probability. The learned Single Judge after adverting the entire facts of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, correctly taken the view that both the proceedings can run simultaneously and has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 4 8. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 9. We do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal sans merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.22 10:37:40 +0530