KISHORE KUMAR SAHU, vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010222242026 2026:CGHC:45597
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4562 of 2026
1 - Kishore Kumar Sahu, S/o- Shri Yogeshwar Kumar Sahu, Aged About
42 Years R/o- Village Kuruskera, Post - Sursabandha, Police Station
Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director, Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Divisional Joint Director (Education), Division Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
4 - District Education Officer, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)
5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Magarlod, District-
Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Ms. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy.G.A.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)
Order on Board
28/10/2026
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

2
reliefs:-
“(i) To kindly issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
thereby directing the respondent authorities to keep the
departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner
pursuant to the departmental charge-sheet dated
29.01.2026 in abeyance till final conclusion of the
pending criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.
124/2011;
(ii) To kindly issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
thereby quashing the order dated 16.03.2026 whereby
the District Education Officer, Dhamtari has been
appointed as the Enquiry Officer despite being cited as a
witness in the departmental proceedings.
iii. To kindly issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
thereby restraining the respondent authorities from
proceeding further with the departmental enquiry against
the petitioner during pendency of the criminal trial;
(iv) To kindly pass any other or further orders as this
Hon'ble Court may deem just, equitable, and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case to secure the
ends of justice.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner though submits that the issue
involved in the present petition regarding continuation of
departmental enquiry on same set of charges & evidence in case
of pendency of criminal trial on the same set of evidence is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in WPS
No.7565/2026 but, another ground has also been raised that the
Enquiry Officer has been appointed vide Annexure P-1 by
appointing the District Education Officer, Dhamtari as Enquiry

3
Officer to enquire into the alleged charge sheet, whereas the
District Education Officer is also stated to be one of the witnesses
in the said charge sheet / disciplinary action. Learned counsel
submits that a witness cannot be an Enquiry Officer and the
procedure adopted by the respondents is bad in law.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties would jointly and fairly
submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been
considered and decided by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2026
passed in WPS No.7565 of 2026, wherein this Court held as
under:-
“7. The question for consideration is whether, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the
departmental proceedings ought to be deferred until
the common witnesses have been examined before
the criminal Court.
8. The law on the subject is well settled. There is no
absolute or inflexible rule that departmental
proceedings must invariably remain stayed during the
pendency of a criminal trial. Both proceedings may
ordinarily continue simultaneously, as they are distinct
in nature and the standard of proof applicable to them
is different. However, where the criminal charge is
grave, the factual foundation of both proceedings is
substantially the same, the witnesses and evidence

4
are common, and continuation of the departmental
inquiry is likely to prejudice the defence of the
delinquent employee in the criminal trial, deferment of
the departmental proceedings may be warranted in
the interests of justice.
9. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines
Ltd. and Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the
circumstances in which it may be desirable to stay
departmental proceedings pending a criminal trial,
particularly where the charges are grave and involve
complicated questions of fact and law and the
evidence in the two proceedings is substantially
similar. The principles governing the issue have also
been considered in Divisional Controller,
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v.
M.G. Vittal Rao, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442;
Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish
V. and Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636; and
State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag and
Others, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 491 . The
consistent view is that the question of deferment must
be determined on the facts of each case, keeping in
view the nature of the allegations, the identity of the
evidence and the likelihood of prejudice, while also

5
ensuring that departmental proceedings are not
unnecessarily delayed.
10. XXX XXX XXX
11. A comparison of the material supplied indicates
substantial overlap in the subject matter of the two
proceedings. The concern raised by the petitioner is
not merely that two proceedings are pending
simultaneously, but that the examination of common
witnesses in the departmental inquiry before their
examination in the criminal trial may disclose the
defence of the petitioner and adversely affect her
position before the criminal Court. It is, however,
necessary to clarify that the mere existence of
common witnesses would not, in every case, justify
staying the entire departmental inquiry. The relief
must be confined to what is necessary to protect the
fairness of the criminal trial, without unduly impeding
the disciplinary authority in the discharge of its duties.
In this regard, the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale
(Dead) through LRs. v. Union of India, reported in
(2012) 13 SCC 142, and Shashi Bhushan Prasad v.
Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Civil Appeal No. 7130
of 2009, decided on 01.08.2019 , may also be kept in
view while applying the settled principles to the facts

6
of the present case.
12. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the
substantial overlap between the factual issues
involved in the criminal case and the departmental
charge, and the material indicating that witnesses to
the incident are common to both proceedings, this
Court is of the considered view that the interests of
justice would be served by deferring the examination
of common witnesses in the departmental inquiry until
they have been examined before the Trial Court in the
pending criminal case. Such a course would
safeguard the petitioner against the possibility of
premature disclosure of her defence, while at the
same time preserving the authority of the
departmental authorities to proceed with the inquiry in
accordance with law. The direction is not intended to
suspend disciplinary action indefinitely or to prevent
the authorities from taking steps which do not cause
prejudice to the petitioner’s defence in the criminal
trial.
4. Having considered the entire facts situation of the case, also
considering the joint submissions made by the parties and further
considering the fact that the identical issue has already been
considered and decided by this Court in WPS No.7565/2026, this
writ petition is also allowed and disposed of in terms of the order

7
passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
5. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall defer the
examination of those witnesses in the departmental inquiry
against the petitioner who are also cited as witnesses in the
pending criminal case, until such common witnesses have been
examined before the competent Trial Court. The departmental
proceedings shall thereafter continue in accordance with law,
subject to the applicable service rules and the observations made
hereinabove.
6. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention here that from the
material availabe on record, it is manifest that the record that the
District Education Officer is one of the witnesses to the charge
alleged against the petitioner and he himself has been appointed
as the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the appointment of the District
Education Officer as Enquiry Officer is liable to be and is hereby
quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to
appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer for initiation of departmental
enquiry.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
SD/-
( Bibhu Datta Guru )
JUDGE
Amardeep