Chattisgarh High Court
Yatendra Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3984 of 2021
Yatendra Dewangan S/o Late Shri Gajanand Dewangan Aged About 50
Years R/o Bhagatsingh Ward, Bhansingh Gali, Patharaguda, Jagdalpur
District Baster Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home,
Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Suprintendent Of Police Baster, District Baster Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Ishan Verma, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
05/08/2021
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of
the departmental proceedings in the light of a criminal case which has
been instituted for the same cause of action.
2. Perusal of the pleadings would reveal that petitioner in the present writ
petition has been working on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector posted at
Lohandiguda, District Bastar. On 21.08.2020 an FIR was lodged at police
Station in Jagdalpur for the offence punishable under Section 421, 120B,
467, 468 & 471 of IPC. The allegation against the accused person in the
FIR is that of illegally collecting huge amount of money from the poor
villagers in the garb of getting them employed in the NMDC, Nagarnaar,
District Jagdalpur. The petitioner herein is said to be a close acquaintance
of the accused person in the said case. Subsequently, a charge sheet has
been issued to the petitioner on 03.12.2020 for allegedly committing
misconduct under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation Clause 64(2) & (3).
It is this charge sheet and departmental enquiry which has been initiated
which is subjected to challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that the evidence led in the departmental
enquiry would have an adverse bearing in the criminal case, therefore, the
departmental enquiry as of now should be either quashed or deferred. The
further contention of the petitioner is that most of the witnesses in the
departmental enquiry and in the FIR seems to be the same. However,
perusal of the pleadings would reveal that petitioner is not an accused in
the FIR even when the charge sheet in the criminal case has been filed.
The petitioner has not been made as an accused. Moreover, the reading of
the charges and the charge sheet would show that allegation against the
petitioner is not that of committing act which is alleged in the FIR. The
allegations against the petitioner would be that of violating the police
Regulations.
4. Given the said fact that petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case
and also taking note of the fact that allegation against the petitioner in the
charge sheet is not of the charge which is levelled aginast the accused in
the FIR, the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of judgment of Supreme
Court rendered in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited
Vs. Girish V. & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 636 or that which has been
enumerated in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag &
Others (2016) 9 SCC 491. The petitioner would have all the liberty of
adducing of defence that he has in his possession in the course of
departmental enquiry to be initiated by the Disciplinary Authority and
Disciplinary Authority is expected to take a decision only after appropriate
appreciation of the evidence collected in the course of enquiry against the
petitioner.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition fails and is accordingly
rejected.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
