2026:CGHC:6806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12384 of 2025 Girdhar Lal Sahu S/o Lekhram Aged About 44 Years R/o House Number 23, Ward Number 20, Pendri, Pendrideeh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

491441 ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - The Superintendent Of Police Police Prashikshan Vidyalaya, District -

Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla,Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

06/02/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this case is heard finally.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date:

2026.02.07 +0530 “10.1 To call for entire records pertaining to the case for kindn perusal.

10.2 To restrain the respondents from continuing departmental enquiry pursuant to chargesheet dated 25.05.2023 till the culmination of Criminal Case No. 3977/2023 pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon.

10.3 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working as Constable under the respondent Department, one criminal case was registered against him for alleged commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC on the complaint of Vinita Madan. Based on registration of criminal case, one departmental enquiry was also initiated against him and charge memo was issued. He contended that witnesses namely Vivek Madan and Vinita Madan mentioned in the 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, are common witnesses. If petitioner has to cross-examine the witness in the departmental enquiry, who are also the witness in the criminal case, then, defence which is to be raised by the petitioner in the criminal case would be open, which will adversely affect his right to defend the criminal case and therefore, the witnesses who are also the witnesses in the criminal case may not be permitted to examine in the departmental enquiry proceedings till those witnesses are examined before the trial Court in criminal case. In support of his contention, he 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 & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag & Ors. reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is no bar for continuing both the proceedings i.e. departmental enquiry and criminal case parallelly . It is for the petitioner to demonstrate that the nature of allegations and the witnesses are one and same in both proceedings. Petitioner in this writ petition has not specifically pleaded the aforementioned fact and therefore, no relief as prayed for can be granted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a suspended employee of the police department holding the post of Constable. Departmental enquiry is initiated against him, charge-memo is also issued to him on 25.05.2023 which appears to be an outcome of Crime No. 163/2023 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC . After investigation, police authorities submitted charge-sheet/final report on 28.06.2023 for the a