Krishna Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3856 Chatt

                                             1

                                                                                  NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               WPS No. 3872 of 2022
      Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Saakha Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years At Jakta
       Kampa, Police Station Mungeli, District- Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Posted As Sub-
       Inspector At- Rakshit Kendra, Sukma, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                         ---- Petitioner

                                          Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home/police, At-
        Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     2. Director General of Police At- Police Headquarter, Near Mahanadi Bhavan,
        Naya Mantralay Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     3. Inspector General of Police At- Main Road Shankar Nagar, Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh.

     4. Superintendent of Police Sukma, District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

     5. Sub-Divisional officer Police Sukma, At- District- Sukma, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

17.06.2022

Heard on petition.

1. It is submitted that the petitioner is posted and working as Sub-inspector, at

Rakshit Kendra Sukma, District- Sukma (C.G.). The departmental inquiry has

been initiated against the petitioner on this bases that one Criminal Case as

Crime No. 22 of 2021, has been registered against for commission of offences

u/s 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Charge-sheet has been filed and

trial has concerned.

2. The charges in the charge-sheet of the departmental inquiry are the same.

Relying on the judgment of this Court in the Sandip Kumar Singh Versus

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank & Ors. WPS No. 2377 of 2018 and the order

disposed in the case of WPS No. 1813 of 2019, Ravindra Aware versus State

of C.G. and Ors. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for similar relief.

Hence, orders will pass accordingly.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submit that the petitioner

has the in-charge sheeted for dereliction duties and authorized absence.

Although there are charges against him on the basis of the criminal case also

against him. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. Considered on the submissions in this case of Sandip Kumar Singh Vs.

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (supra) the learned co-ordinate bench has

observed in paragraph No. 08 & 09 as follows:-

08. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the decision of Supreme

Court in case of Karnataka SRTC Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao, 2012 (1) SCC 442,

wherein the Supreme Court has summed up the same in the following words:

" (I) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go on simultaneously.

(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may

be stated would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal

case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in

cases involving complex questions of facts or law.

(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the

departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the

employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial,

except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the

evidence in both the proceedings is common." (emphasis supplied)

5. On the basis of the decision rendered by this co-ordinate bench of this Court

this petition is also disposed off in the same line. It is the submission of the

petitioner counsel that statement of witnesses have not been recorded so far

in the departmental inquiry. Hence, on this basis it is ordered that ends of

justice would serve in case the department inquiry initiated against the

petitioner is kept in abeyance until the finalization of the criminal case and the

respondent authority shall be at liberty to proceed in the departmental inquiry

after the termination of the criminal case and conclude the same.

6. With these observations this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

vaishali