Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.16 11:16:28 +0530

Order on Board

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:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned orders & notices dated 14.05.2025, 28.05.2025, 29.05.2025, 07.06.2025 & 04.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to keep the departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal trial pending against the petitioner.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working as Constable under the respondent- Police Department, FIR bearing Crime No.123 of 2024 (Police Station- Jainagar, District- Surajpur) and FIR bearing Crime No.134 of 2024 (Police Station Vishrampur, District – Surajpur) were registered against him for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 ,467, 468 ,471 of IPC. Based on registration of criminal case, one departmental enquiry was also initiated against him and charge memo was issued. He contended that witnesses namely – Ashok Sahu, Vishal Mishra, Pushpa Ravi, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Vikas Singh, Sunil Bharti, S.N. Pal, Shiv Kumar Sarthi, Brij Kishore Dhurwa, Mahendra Singh, Vineet Pandey, Pushpa Painkara, Shatrughan Singh and Santosh Gupta whose names are mentioned in the list of witnesses enclosed along with 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 those witnesses in the departmental enquiry, who are also witnesses in the criminal case, before they are examined in 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 which appears to be an outcome of Crime No. 123 of 2024 registered at Police Station- Jainagar, District Surajpur and Crime No.134 of 2024 registered at Police Station- Vishrampur, District Surajpur for alleged commission of offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. After investigation, police authoriti