2026:CGHC:8347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12825 of 2025 Prakash Mishra S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Mishra Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Patwari Office, Civil Line, Baloda Bazar, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil-

Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

2 - Inspector General Of Police (I G P), Office Of Inspector General Of Police Shankar Nagar, Raipur Range, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

3 - Superintendent Of Police (S P), O/o Superintendent Of Police, Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara C.G.

4 - Enquiry Officer/additional Superintendent Of Police (Additional S.P.), O/o Additional S.P. Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Ward, Patpar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara C.G.

5 - Presenting Officer/inspector, Police Line, Baloda Bazaar, District Baloda Digitally Bazaar-Bhatapara C.G.

signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR

SINHA

Date:

2026.02.18

+0530

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate along with Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Advocate General S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

16/02/2026

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:-

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are stayed till examination of prosecution witness No. 2, Sub Inspector Surendra Mishra, PS-Kharora who is common witness in departmental enquiry and criminal case against the petitioner, before the trial Court and to proceed further in the departmental enquiry thereafter.

(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.”

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 331 (6), 310 (2) of BNS on the complaint of one Radhe Lal Bhardwaj. Based on registration of criminal case, one departmental enquiry was also initiated against him and charge memo was issued. He contended that witness Surendra Mishra, Sub Inspector whose name is 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, is common witness. If petitioner has to cross-examine the witness in the departmental enquiry, who is 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 witness who is also the witness in the criminal case may not be permitted to examine in the departmental enquiry proceedings till that witness is 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 peti