IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.1 WRIT PETITION CS^ N0. T^'/'J? OF 2009 ^ PETITIONER ....•-•^ ) ^° ^.•:/<^..--- ^''^.."•/."o':"%'?§"'...-" •?,T^""^ ).'..'-"" -^^^- '*»^-"" RESPONDENTS 1. Meghnath Sahu, S/o late Shri Kaliram Sahu, aged about 49 years, Head Constable No. 896, Presently Posted at Police Line Durg, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). s^.-^ l-ssi^ I.IS' u ^^y '^iF' Ss-^^...^- 2. Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Enquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE COMSTITUTION OF INDIA -••!; HTGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7013 of2009 Petitioner Meghnatli Sahu Versus Respoadents State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE C.ONSTJTUTION OF INDIA (SB: HorAle Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Slui P. P. Saiiu, Auvocate for ihe peti+ioner. Shri M.P, S. Bhatia, Depu'i:^' Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 9. ( Pas.sed on this 1st day of Febn-iarv", 2010 Heard. Leai-aed counsel appeariiig for fhe petitioner subinits that a criuiitial case has been registered agaiiist fhe petitioner for the offence iinder Sections 294, 506-B, 324 aiid 34 of fhe Indian Penal Code. In that connectioQ a sheet Iias to be field bv tbe poUce iu the jurisdictional Court. At tlie same t"ne, fhe le.spondents/authorities have iG.itiat.ed a departaierLtal enqiuiy, based on fhe sam.e set of facts aad e\iidences iu botli ttie Froce.edin.gs, Leaj-aed counsel further subinits fhat if the evidences are disclosed ia. fhe departinental enquisy, the case of the petitioner may be pl-ejudiced in the ciimia.al case ajid as such the aufhorities m.ay be directed to suspend tiie discipluiaiy proceedings till tiie crimilial proceediiig is coiapleted. In siipport of his submission leamed counsel rely on a decision in Hiadustaa Petroleuna Cksrporation Ltd. an< "tfl < 4. Th&kLl? •yl, wherem Supreiae Court observed a.3 uaaer "7. It is a fairly weU-settled position in law fllat on basic principles, proceediags iii ciinrmal case aiid departmental proceedings can. go on siinultaneously, except ia soine cases where departaiental proceediiigs and criintaal case are based on the saiae set of facts and ttie evidence in bofb. the proceedings is coninion. It is iii these cases, the court has to decide, takittg into account tfae special features of th.e case, whether smiultaiieous conthiuaiice of bofh would be proper." In view of the well settled ratio fbe discipliiiar,7 autliority/enquinr of&ce raust consider tbe application of tb.e petitioner asto whefhier tlie depai-tmental proceedia.gs aiid crim.iaal case are based on the sanie set of facts and evidence. If this is the case, it would be proper to keep tlie disciplinaiy proceedings suspended till fhe cn.miaal proceediiig is coiaplste. For ttie reasons ineiitioned hereitiabove, fhe coinpetent aufhority is directed to cousider the representation of the petitioner and raay pass appropriate order in accoidance wifh law withia a period of four weeks before uiitiatuig departniental enquity. No order asto co.sts. Sd/- iatish K. Agnihotri Judge (2005) 10 SCC471