[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally
signed by 2026:CGHC:16224
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Date:
NAFR
2026.04.10
19:01:18
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2726 of 2026
1. Amit Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Kishore Tiwari Aged About 48
Years R/o D-52, Rama Life City, In Front Of International
School, Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Home/ Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General
Of Police, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Superintendent Of Police Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh
4. Additional Superintendent Of Police/ Enquiry Officer
Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
5. Presenting Officer Station House Officer, Police Station -
Palari, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mishra and Ms. Neeta Tulsani
Thawani, Advocates
For Respondents : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
08/04/2026
1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct respondent authorities to produce all
the relevant records relating to case of the
petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for
perusal.
(ii). That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to disposed of writ petition with a
direction to the respondent authorities to
ensure that disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner are stayed till
examination of complainant and other
witnesses, who are common witnesses in
departmental enquiry and criminal case
against the petitioner, before the trial Court
and to proceed further in the departmental
enquiry thereafter.
(iii). That, this Hon'ble Court may further be
pleased to direct respondents to give suitable
compensation to the petitioner for the mental
trauma and agony, harassment and hardships
suffered by him as also cost of the litigation."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
an employee of the Police Department and holding the post of
Inspector. A memo of charge was issued to petitioner leveling
three charges against him, stating that petitioner while posted
as Station House Incharge of Police Station Balodbazar, in the
course of investigation of Crime Nos.260/2024, 261/2024,
262/2024, 598/2024 registered for commission of offence under
Sections 384, 389, 212, 34 IPC, had involved himself in such
activities which amount to violation of Regulation No. 64 of the
Police Regulations. Along with charge memo, petitioner has
also been supplied list of witnesses to be examined in the
course of inquiry. Charge-memo is issued pursuant to
registration of FIR against petitioner under Crime No.260/2024
for alleged commission of offence under Sections 384, 389,
212, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that most of
the witnesses in charge-memo issued by the respondent
department and the charge-sheet submitted by the police after
investigation before the Court of competent jurisdiction in a
criminal case registered against petitioner, are one and same. If
petitioner has to cross-examine the witnesses in the
departmental enquiry before they are examined in criminal
case, then the defence which is to be raised by petitioner in
criminal case would be open, which will adversely affect his
right to defend in criminal case and therefore, the witnesses
namely Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre,
Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram,
Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das. who
are also the witnesses in criminal case, may not be permitted to
examine in the departmental enquiry proceedings till those
witnesses are examined before the trial Court in the criminal
case.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679,
Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. &
Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, State Bank of India &
Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag & Ors. reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491
and also in the case of Sobant Singh Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WP(S) No. 6706/2025 decided on
18.07.2025.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State
vehemently opposes submission of counsel for the petitioner
and would submit that there is no bar for continuing both the
proceedings i.e. the departmental enquiry and the criminal case
parallely. He, however, does not dispute submission of learned
counsel for petitioner that witnesses namely Rajesh
Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar
Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay
Soni and Dharmendra Kumar Das, are common in both the
proceedings. The petitioner in this writ petition has not
specifically pleaded as to how common witnesses if examined
in departmental enquiry first, will adversely affect his defence in
criminal case and therefore, no relief as prayed for can be
granted. In support of her contention, she places reliance upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Lekhchand Sahu Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine
CHH 459.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the documents placed on record.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a suspended employee
of the police department holding the post of Inspector.
Departmental enquiry is initiated against him, charge-memo
was issued to him arising out of offence registered against him
under FIR No.260/2024 for alleged commission of offence
under Sections 384, 389, 212, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code, in
which after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet/
final report on 29.12.2025.
6. Perusal of list of prosecution witnesses annexed along with
charge-memo issued in departmental proceedings to petitioner,
which is filed as Annexrue P/5 to writ petition, as also the
charge sheet filed in criminal case registered against petitioner,
would show that Rajesh Shrivastava, Chheduram Sahu, Pinki
Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad, Yashwant Yadav, Mohd.
Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni and Dharmendra Kumar
Das are the witnesses to the departmental enquiry proceedings
as also in criminal case.
7. Departmental enquiry, from perusal of the documents enclosed
along with writ petition i.e. charge-memo and charge-sheet filed
by the police after investigation, appears to be based on
criminal case registered against petitioner. About nine
witnesses in both the proceedings are one and same, those
witnesses may record their statement before the authorities in
departmental enquiry proceedings, as also before Court and if
the petitioner is forced to cross-examine those witnesses in the
departmental enquiry proceedings before they are examined
before the Court in the criminal case, it may make it open the
defence of petitioner before the witnesses which will adversely
affect the defence of the petitioner in criminal case.
8. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 22 had laid down certain
guidelines and held that in the event if the issue involves
complicated question of law and facts, if the evidences are
similar, if not identical, it would be desirable to stay the
disciplinary proceedings. For ready reference paragraph No. 22
of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-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 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 offence, the nature of the
case launched against the employee on
the basis of evidence and material
collected against him during 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 being unduly delayed,
the departmental proceedings, even if
they were stayed on account of the
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, administration may get rid
of him at the earliest."
9. A similar stand has again been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu (Supra) which has
also been relied by the Counsel for the petitioner. The aforesaid
view of the Supreme Court has further been reiterated again in
the case of Neelam Nag (Supra). In all these cases, the
principle of law so far as stay of the departmental enquiry, in the
event of the nature of allegations and the witnesses remained
the same have not been diluted. He Courts have very
emphatically held that for stay of the departmental enquiry,
there can be no straight jacket formula which can be spelt out, it
would all depend upon the facts of each case.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv
Bhosle (Died) through Lrs. Vs. Union of India reported in
(2012) 13 SCC 142 has observed that both the proceedings i.e.
the departmental enquiry proceedings and the criminal case
can proceed together except where both the proceedings are
based on the same set of facts and evidence in both the
proceedings are common.
11. The aforementioned principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was further reiterated in the case of Neelam
Nag (Supra). In case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs. Inspector
General of C.I.S.F. reported in Civil Appeal No. 7310/2009
decided on 01.08.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court has again
reiterated the same principle as discussed above.
12. In the case at hand, the petitioner who is a Inspector in the
Police Department is facing a departmental enquiry as well as a
criminal trial. In both the cases about nine witnesses are one
and the same and if the petitioner is permitted to cross-examine
those witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings, the
defence which is setup by petitioner for criminal case would be
open and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there are
sufficient grounds to allow the prayer of petitioner in this case.
13. For the foregoing discussion, it is directed that the departmental
proceedings may go on, however, the respondent authorities
shall not examine witnesses namely, Rajesh Shrivastava,
Chheduram Sahu, Pinki Kurre, Narendra Kumar Nishad,
Yashwant Yadav, Mohd. Akram, Vaibhav Verma, Sanjay Soni
and Dharmendra Kumar Das. who are also witnesses in
criminal case, till they are examined in criminal case registered
against the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed
to the above extent.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
