##PAGE1##

1 / 7

2026:CGHC:14772

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 13394 of 2025

Ashwini Kumar Rao S/o Late Raj Govind Rao Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Katiya Lahang, Post- Rajapur, Police Station- Qasimabad, District- Ghazipur, State Of Uttar Pradesh, Presently Working As Aarakshak (Constable) No-453,office Of Senani 15th Vahini (Bh/20) Chhattisgarh, Armed

Force, Dhanora, District- Bijapur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Principal Secretary, Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh, Armed Force, Raipur District-

Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Commandant 15th Vahini (Bh/20) Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Dhanora, District- Bijapur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Mohd. Sohail Afzal, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Digitally Order on Board

signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA

Date:

2026.04.01

19:04:48 +0530

2 / 7

30/03/2026

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 Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ staying the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner arising out of the same allegations as contained in FIR No. 97/2024, Police Station Pandri,

Raipur.

10.2 Direct the respondents to keep in abeyance the departmental enquiry report dated 10.10.2025 and not to pass any final order till

the disposal of the criminal trial.

10.3 Direct that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the said inquiry during the pendency of the criminal case. 10.4 Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working as Constable under the respondent Department, FIR bearing Crime No.97 of 2024 was registered against him for offence punishable under Section 509-B 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 Dumeshwri Sahu, Yashwant Kumar Sahu, Head Constable Kanti Devi Gaikwad, Smt. Kanti Sahu and Rajendra Kumar Sahu whose names are mentioned in the charge-memo issued by the respondent- department

3 / 7

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 the 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