Leela Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7436 Chatt

                                         -1-


                                                                                NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                               WPS No. 8768 of 2022

   Leela Ram Sahu S/o Durga Prasad Sahu Aged About 32 Years Currently Working
   As Constable At Police Station Lal Bag Rajnandgaon, (C.G.), R/o Village Lalipara,
   Khargahna, Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                        ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Deptt of Home And Police, Mantralaya,
   Atal Nagar New Raipur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director General Of Police Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Respondents

09/12/2022 Mr. Rahim Ubwani, Advocate Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Heard.

Issue notice to respondents.

Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer, accepts notice on behalf of respondents, hence, process fee is not required to be paid.

Learned State counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.

Also heard on IA No.1, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that due to some family dispute, wife of the petitioner has lodged report against the petitioner pursuant to which FIR was registered against him for offence defined under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC at Mahila Police Thana, Raipur. Subsequently, petitioner was served with charge memo vide Annexure P-1 on 30.09.2022 and the department is proceeding with departmental proceedings. He submits that charge levelled against the petitioner in departmental proceedings is of misbehaving with his wife which is also one of the offence alleged against the petitioner in criminal case. Witness is one and the same to be common in departmental proceedings as well as criminal case. If the departmental proceedings is permitted to continue and witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings before their examination in the criminal case, defence of the petitioner before criminal Court will be adversely affected. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perusal of Annexure P-1 itself mentions that one crime is registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC and similar charge of misbehaviour is also framed in the departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, purely as in interim measure, it is directed that departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 30.09.2022 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

List this case in the week commencing 6 th February 2023.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-/-/-----//--/-/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Praveen