Chhattisgarh HC Defers Common Witnesses’ Testimony In Police Employee’s Departmental Inquiry Until Criminal Trial Hears Them

The petitioner challenged a charge-sheet dated 19 May 2026 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Korba, seeking its quashing, production of the relevant records, and compensation for alleged harassment and hardship

The parties jointly submitted that the issue was covered by the High Court’s order in WPS No. 7565 of 2026, which addressed the risk of prejudice where witnesses are common to pending criminal and departmental proceedings

The Court disposed of the petition by applying that earlier decision

No absolute rule requires departmental proceedings to be stayed during a criminal trial; ordinarily, both may proceed simultaneously because they are distinct and apply different standards of proof.

Deferment may nevertheless be warranted where the criminal charge is grave, the factual foundation and evidence substantially overlap, and continuation of the departmental inquiry risks prejudicing the employee’s criminal defence.

The issue is fact-specific, and any relief should be limited to what is necessary to protect the fairness of the criminal trial without unduly impeding the disciplinary process.

The Court relied on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679; Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442; Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V., (2014) 3 SCC 636; State Bank of India v. Neelam Nag, (2016) 9 SCC 491; Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 142; and Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. Inspector General, C.I.S.F., Civil Appeal No. 7130 of 2009, decided 1 August 2019

No statutory provision was identified as forming the basis of the decision.

The Court noted that the parties agreed the issue was identical to one already decided in WPS No. 7565 of 2026

Applying the reasoning adopted there, it concluded that examination of witnesses common to the departmental inquiry and criminal case should be deferred until those witnesses have testified before the Trial Court.

This limited direction protects against premature disclosure of the petitioner’s defence while allowing the department to continue other permissible steps in the inquiry

The departmental proceedings may thereafter continue in accordance with law and applicable service rules

The order grants this procedural relief; it does not expressly quash the charge-sheet or award compensation