Chattisgarh High Court
Piyush Verma vs Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin ... on 12 March, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:12355
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6215 of 2023
1 - Piyush Verma S/o- Late Vinod Verma Aged About 38 Years Branch
Manager (Suspended), Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch- Pasta,
Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, R/o- Behind District
Hospital, Darripara, Kabir Ward, Ambikapur, P.S.- Manipur, Tahsil-
Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office-
Mahadevghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager (Operation-2) Cum Disciplinary Authority
Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Mahadevghat Road, Sunder Nagar,
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office,
At Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Sushil Tigga Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank,
Branch Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
5 - Abhishek Badiyaar Presenting Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin
Bank, Branch Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.
For Respondents : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
12.03.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to defer from the
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner till
the conclusion of criminal case/trial pending before the
JMFC, First Class, Balrampur, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj, C.G.
10.2 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the same set
of facts and evidence, a criminal case as well as a departmental
enquiry is going on against the petitioner. He would contend that
the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Clerk-cum-
Cashier under the respondents and thereafter he was promoted to the
post of Branch Manager. At the relevant time, he was posted at
Branch Kamari, Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj. He
would contend that an FIR was registered against the petitioner on
9.3.2022 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections
409, 420 and 120-B of IPC and the petitioner was placed under
suspension. He would contend that on account of the registration of
FIR, a departmental enquiry was initiated. He would also submit
that the allegations in the article of charge and the charge-sheet are
almost similar and the witnesses are also common. He would argue
that an interim application was moved by the petitioner for the stay
of the departmental enquiry and the same was allowed vide order
dated 10.11.2023. He would further argue that out of 25 prosecution
witnesses, 24 witnesses have already been examined and the
criminal case is at its fag end. In support thereof, he placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
another, (1999) 3 SCC 679.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
He would contend that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner and the allegations are also not similar. He would contend
that the witnesses in the departmental enquiry and the criminal case
are not common. He would also submit that the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
present on the record.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony (supra), in paragraph 22 of the report held as under:-
"22. The conclusions which are deducible from
various decisions of this Court referred to above
are :
(i) Departmental Proceedings and proceedings in a
criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there
is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously,
though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case are based on an identical and similar
set of facts and the charge in the criminal case
against the delinquent employee is of a grave
nature which involves complicated questions of law
and fact, it would be desirable to stay the
departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the
criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal
case is grave and whether complicated questions of
fact and law are involved in that case, will depend
upon the nature of the offence, the nature of the
case launched against the employee on the basis of
evidence and material collected against him during
the investigation or as reflected in the charge
sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above
cannot be considered in isolation to stay the
departmental proceedings but due regard has to be
given to the fact that the departmental proceedings
cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its
disposal is unduly delayed, the departmental
proceedings even if were stayed on account of
pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and
proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early
date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he is found
guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the
earliest."
6. In the present case, on account of the registration of an FIR, a
departmental enquiry was initiated. A perusal of the charge-sheet
issued in the criminal case and the article of charge would show that
the allegations are almost similar and the witnesses are also
common. Further, out of 25 prosecution witnesses, 24 witnesses
have already been examined and the next date of hearing before the
learned Court below is 2.4.2025.
7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul
Anthony (supra), the petition is allowed. The department would be
at liberty to continue with the departmental proceedings after the
conclusion of the criminal case. The interim order granted earlier is
hereby vacated.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
