Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Dhamtari DEO’s Appointment As Inquiry Officer Because He Is A Witness, Defers Common Witnesses’ Departmental Testimony Until Their Criminal-Trial Examination

In brief

The question

1. Whether examination of witnesses common to the departmental inquiry and pending criminal trial should be deferred until those witnesses have testified before the Trial Court.

The court held

The respondents were directed to defer examination in the departmental inquiry of witnesses also cited in the criminal case until they had been examined before the competent Trial Court; thereafter, the inquiry could continue in accordance with law and applicable service rules.

It also directed

The appointment of the District Education Officer as Enquiry Officer was quashed, with liberty to the respondents to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner faced departmental proceedings under a charge-sheet dated 29 January 2026, alongside pending criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 124/2011.

¶ 1

He sought to defer the departmental inquiry and challenged the appointment of the District Education Officer, Dhamtari, as Enquiry Officer on the ground that the officer was also a witness in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶ 2

The parties submitted that the issue concerning the criminal and departmental proceedings had been addressed in WPS No. 7565 of 2026.

¶ 3

The Court also found from the record that the District Education Officer was a witness to the alleged charge.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether examination of witnesses common to the departmental inquiry and pending criminal trial should be deferred until those witnesses have testified before the Trial Court.

¶ 2–5

ii.2. Whether the District Education Officer could be appointed Enquiry Officer when he was also a witness in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶ 2, 6

03Law Applied

Departmental and criminal proceedings may ordinarily continue simultaneously because they are distinct and apply different standards of proof.

¶ 3

However, where the allegations and evidence substantially overlap, and continuation of the inquiry may prejudice the employee’s defence in the criminal trial, the inquiry may be deferred to the extent necessary to protect the fairness of the trial; the existence of common witnesses does not automatically require a stay of the entire inquiry.

¶ 3

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.

¶ 3

The Court further held that the appointment of an officer who is himself a witness as Enquiry Officer could not stand in the circumstances of this case.

¶ 6

04Reasoning

Applying the approach adopted in WPS No. 7565 of 2026, the Court directed a limited safeguard rather than suspending the entire departmental inquiry: witnesses common to both proceedings were not to be examined in the inquiry until they had been examined before the competent Trial Court.

¶ 3–5

Separately, because the District Education Officer was a witness to the alleged charge, the Court held that his appointment as Enquiry Officer was liable to be quashed.

¶ 6