Bhavani Singh Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4056 Chatt

                                         1


                                                                        NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          W.P.(S). No. 4275 of 2022

Bhavani Singh Chauhan S/o Kirtan Ram Chauhan, Occupation Sub Inspector
Posted At Reserve Center Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

1.     State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police Near
       Mantralaya, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492001

2.     The Deputy Inspector General Of Police Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.)

3.     The Superintendent Of Police Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

4.     The Station House Officer Kondagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.)



For Petitioner                    : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Advocate

For Respondents/State             : Mr. Kunal Das, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board

27/06/2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not

press upon the documents at page No.65, hence, the default pointed

out by the Registry is ignored.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector under the respondents. On the

basis of a complaint filed by one Yatendra Singh, offence under

Section 384, 379, 201, 34 was registered against the petitioner.

Charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner is being prosecuted in

this case. On the same ground, a departmental enquiry is also initiated

against the petitioner. It is submitted that witnesses in the criminal

case and the departmental enquiry both are same. Reliance has been

placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Capt. M. Paul

Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Anr, reported in 1993 (3)

SCC 679, in which specific guidelines have been issued by the

Supreme Court in such case. Hence, appropriate order be passed.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents present on record.

5. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also

taking note of the judicial pronouncement as it stands, the present writ

petition if taken into consideration, it would reveal that for proving the

charges which have been leveled against the petitioner in the

departmental charge-sheet, the witnesses if not all, most of them

would be the same who are also the witnesses in the Criminal Court.

6. Under the circumstances, if the witnesses are permitted to be

examined in the disciplinary proceedings before they are examined in

the criminal Court, there is all likelihood of the evidences of the

petitioner being adversely affected. Since the most of witnesses are

common in the two proceedings and in case if the witnesses who are

common before the two proceedings are examined in the departmental

enquiry ahead of their statements being recorded in the criminal case,

undoubtedly the defence of the present petitioner (the accused in the

criminal case) would get disclosed and can have an adverse bearing in

the criminal case detrimental to the interest of the delinquent (the

petitioner).

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the writ

petition as of now can be disposed of with a direction to the

respondent-authorities to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding

initiated against the petitioner be deferred till all the witnesses in the

departmental enquiry who are also witnesses in the criminal case, are

examined before the trial Court in the criminal case against the

petitioner and to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings

thereafter.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands

disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram