MANISH KUMAR VERMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010383342026 2026:CGHC:46757
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
SHARMA
Date:
2026.11.05
16:33:17
+0530
JYOTI
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7214 of 2026
Manish Kumar Verma S/o Shiv Kumar Verma Aged About 42 Years
Posted As In Charge Principal Govt High School Jogipur Kota District
Bilaspur C. G. R/o Ghutiya P O Baitulpur Tehsil Pathariya District Mungeli
C. G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Ministry Of Education
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.
G.
2. Director Public Education Directorate Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District
Raipur C. G.
3. Joint Director Education Department District Bilaspur C. G.
4. Additional Director Education Department District Bilaspur C. G.
5. Collector District Bilaspur C.G.
6. District Education Officer District Bilaspur C. G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, G.A.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)
Order on Board
04/11/2026
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call

2
for the entire records from the respondents pertaining to
the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash/set aside the departmental enquiry (Annexure P/5)
initiated and pending against the petitioner in the interest
of justice.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the Respondent authorities to keep the
departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner vide
departmental charge-sheet dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure
P/5) in abeyance till the final disposal of Criminal Case
No. 3276/2025 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Kota,
District Bilaspur (C.G.), and Special Criminal Case
(POCSO Act) No. 179/2025 pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Court, Second Fast Track Special
Court (POCSO), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in the
interest of justice.
10.4 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit to grant in the interest of Justice.
2. At the outset, 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:-

3
“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
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

4
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 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

5
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 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

6
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.
3. 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
passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
4. 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.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
SD/-
( Bibhu Datta Guru )
JUDGE
Jyoti