##PAGE1##

1 / 6

2026:CGHC:15212 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2794 of 2026

• Suresh Tiwari S/o Chandradutt Tiwari Aged About 48 Years Occupation Constable, R/o Ward No. 1 Subhashnagar P.S. Gandhinagar District Surguja

Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police, Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Inspector General Surguja Range, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

4. The Superintendent Of Police District Surguja Chhattisgarh

5. City Superintendent Of Police Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

02/04/2026

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:-

“10.1 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.

2 / 6

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are stayed till examination of prosecution witnesses ie., the victim and Smt. Babita Yadav, A.S.I. AJAK Surajpur 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.

10.3 Any other relief(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and

circumstances of this case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner when working on the post of Constable at police station Surajpur, an F.I.R. was registered against him bearing Crime No. 17/2025 for alleged commission of offence under Section 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the criminal case registered, one departmental enquiry is also initiated against petitioner. The victim in the criminal case, as also one Assistant Sub- Inspector are common witnesses in both the proceedings and if both the witnesses examined are permitted to be examined and cross-examined in the departmental enquiry proceedings before they are examined in the criminal case, it will affect the defence and cause prejudice to petitioner in defence to be taken in criminal proceedings 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 that 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

3 / 6

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 parallally . 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