Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Witness Education Officer’s Inquiry Appointment, Defers Departmental Testimony Of Shared Witnesses Until They Testify In Criminal Trial

The petitioner challenged a departmental charge-sheet dated 29 January 2026, seeking to defer the inquiry pending criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 124/2011.

She also challenged the appointment of the District Education Officer (DEO), Dhamtari, as Enquiry Officer, alleging that the DEO was a witness in the disciplinary proceedings.

The parties accepted that the issue concerning the departmental inquiry was covered by the High Court’s earlier order in WPS No. 7565 of 2026.

On the record, the Court found that the DEO was a witness to the alleged charge.

Departmental and criminal proceedings may ordinarily proceed simultaneously because they are distinct and apply different standards of proof. However, where the allegations and evidence substantially overlap and proceeding with the departmental inquiry risks prejudicing the employee’s defence in the criminal trial, the inquiry may be deferred to the extent necessary to protect the fairness of that trial; common witnesses may therefore be examined in the inquiry after they have testified before the trial court.

The Court referred to 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, CISF, Civil Appeal No. 7130 of 2009, decided 1 August 2019, in support of the case-specific approach to deferment.

The Court also held, on the facts, that the DEO’s appointment as Enquiry Officer was liable to be quashed because the DEO was a witness in the matter.

Applying the approach adopted in WPS No. 7565 of 2026, the Court directed a limited deferral rather than staying the entire departmental inquiry: only the examination of witnesses common to the inquiry and criminal case was postponed, until those witnesses had been examined before the trial court.

This addressed the risk of premature disclosure of the petitioner’s defence while allowing the remaining disciplinary process to continue.

Separately, because the record showed that the DEO was a witness to the charge, the Court held that the DEO’s appointment as Enquiry Officer could not stand.

The order appointing the DEO as Enquiry Officer was quashed, with liberty to the respondents to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer.

The petition was allowed and disposed of.