School Principal’s Inquiry Can Continue, But Chhattisgarh HC Defers Questioning Common Witnesses Until They Testify In Criminal Court

In brief

The question

Whether the departmental inquiry should be stayed in its entirety until the pending criminal proceedings conclude.

The court held

The petition was allowed and disposed of.

It also directed

The respondents must defer examination in the departmental inquiry of witnesses also cited in the pending criminal case until those witnesses have been examined before the competent trial court. The departmental proceedings may thereafter continue in accordance with law and the applicable service rules; the Court did not stay the entire inquiry.

01Facts

The petitioner, an In-Charge Principal, challenged a departmental charge-sheet dated 19 November 2025 and sought to quash the inquiry or keep it in abeyance pending Criminal Case No. 3276/2025 and Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act) No. 179/2025.

¶ 1

At the hearing, counsel for both sides jointly submitted that the issue had been decided in WPS No. 7565 of 2026.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.Whether the departmental inquiry should be stayed in its entirety until the pending criminal proceedings conclude.

¶ 1

ii.Whether examination in the departmental inquiry of witnesses also cited in the criminal case should be deferred until they have testified before the trial court.

¶ 2, 4

03Law Applied

Departmental and criminal proceedings may ordinarily proceed simultaneously because they are distinct and apply different standards of proof; there is no absolute rule requiring a departmental inquiry to be stayed during a criminal trial. Deferment may be appropriate where the criminal charge is grave, the proceedings substantially overlap in their facts and evidence, and continuation of the inquiry risks prejudicing the employee’s criminal defence.

¶ 2, quoting WPS No. 7565 of 2026 · ¶ 8–9, 11–12

The court relied on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679; Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442; Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited 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.

¶ 2, quoting WPS No. 7565 of 2026 · ¶ 8–9, 11–12

04Reasoning

The Court treated the issue as identical to that decided in WPS No. 7565 of 2026, and disposed of the petition on the same terms.

¶ 2–3

Consistent with the principle that relief should protect the fairness of the criminal trial without unnecessarily halting disciplinary proceedings, it directed only that witnesses common to both proceedings not be examined in the departmental inquiry until they have testified before the competent trial court.

¶ 4 · ¶ 2, quoting WPS No. 7565 of 2026 · ¶ 11–12