##PAGE1##

1 / 7

2026:CGHC:14977

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2834 of 2026

Jagdev Prasad Verma S/o Late Shri B.R. Verma Aged About 59 Years R/o Murrabhatti, Gudhiyari, Raipur, P.S. Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District- Raipur,

C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, 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, Raipur Range, Shankar Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G.

3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (D I G P ) / Senior Superintendent Of Police (Sr. S P) O/o. D I G P / Senior Superintendent Of Police, Raipur,

District - Raipur, C.G.

4 - Enquiry Officer / Additional Police Deputy Commissioner Traffic, Office Of Police Commissioner, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

5 - Presenting Officer / Inspector, Traffic Office Of Police Commissioner, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate along with Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate

Digitally For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA

Date:

2026.04.04

12:05:20 +0530

2 / 7

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

01/04/2026

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 ASI Kanhaiyalal Jangde (complainant) and other witness, SI Jitendra Dubey, 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..”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working as Constable under the respondent- Police Department, FIR bearing Crime No.111 of 2019 was registered against him for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Based on registration of criminal

3 / 7

case, one departmental enquiry was also initiated against him and charge memo was issued. He contended that witnesses namely Assistant Sub Inspector Kanhaiya Lal Jangde and Sub Inspector Jitendra Dubey whose names are 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 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