RUBINA BANO, Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the initiation of departmental enquiry by respondents simultaneously along with the criminal case registered for the same set of offence and charges.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Constable under the respondents. According to the petitioner, on 8.1.2020, the respondents have registered a criminal case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34, 392 and 506-B of IPC in Crime No. 9/2020 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli. Simultaneously, the respondents have also issued the petitioner with a charge-sheet and have contemplated departmental enquiry against her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court of the list of witnesses in the said criminal case as also the list of witnesses in the departmental enquiry and submits that both the lists of witnesses would find that most of the witnesses to be examined before the two forums are identical. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that, in case, if these witnesses are examined first in the departmental enquiry then the defense of the petitioner would get disclosed in the criminal case, which may have an adverse impact on the criminal case and therefore the departmental enquiry to that extent should be deferred to. Therefore, relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 636 and also in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M. G Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 learned counsel for petitioner prays for stay of the departmental enquiry.