ORDER ON BOARD

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-

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

(ii). That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to disposed of writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are stayed till examination of complainant and other witnesses, who are common witnesses 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.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the Police Department and holding the post of Inspector. A memo of charge was issued to petitioner leveling three charges against him, stating that petitioner while posted as Station House Incharge of Police Station Balodbazar, in the course of investigation of Crime Nos.260/2024, 261/2024, 262/2024, 598/2024 registered for commission of offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 34 IPC, had involved himself in such activities which amount to violation of Regulation No. 64 of the Police Regulations. Along with charge memo, petitioner has also been supplied list of witnesses to be examined in the course of inquiry. Charge-memo is issued pursuant to registration of FIR against petitioner under Crime No.260/2024 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that most of the witnesses in 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 registered against petitioner, are one and same. If petitioner has to cross-examine the witnesses in the departmental enquiry before they are examined in criminal case, then the defence which is to be raised by petitioner in criminal case would be open, which will adversely affect his right to defend in criminal case and therefore, the witnesses namely Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das. who are also the witnesses in criminal case, may not be permitted to examine in the departmental enquiry proceedings till those witnesses are examined before the trial Court in the criminal case.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 and also in the case of Sobant Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WP(S) No. 6706/2025 decided on 18.07.2025.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State vehemently opposes submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is no bar for continuing both the proceedings i.e. the departmental enquiry and the criminal case parallely. He, however, does not dispute submission of learned counsel for petitioner that witnesses namely Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das, are common in both the proceedings. The petitioner in this writ petition has not specifically pleaded as to how common witnesses if examined in departmental enquiry first, will adversely affect hi