“Discipline Must Prevail Over Delay”: Chhattisgarh HC Refuses to Quash Departmental Enquiry Against RPF Constable, Says ‘Enquiry Cannot Be Stayed Indefinitely Due to Pending Criminal Case’
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed an intra-court appeal seeking to quash departmental proceedings initiated against a Railway Protection Force constable. The appeal, filed after dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Bench, was rejected on the ground that no palpable infirmities were found in the lower court's decision.
The appellant, currently posted as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) at the Bilaspur Division in Chhattisgarh, originally joined the RPF at Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. On 11.10.2022, an FIR was registered against him and one Chandan Kumar Jaiswal under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018), along with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that Jaiswal demanded a bribe of Rs. 8,000 on behalf of the appellant from a tea-stall owner at Mirzapur Railway Station. The appellant was arrested on 12.10.2022 and placed under suspension on the same day by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF, Prayagraj.
The appellant was released on bail on 20.12.2022. His suspension was revoked on 17.11.2022, and he was transferred to the South East Central Railway, Bilaspur. Subsequently, a departmental charge memorandum was issued to him on 24.04.2023 by the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, SECR, Bilaspur. On 28.04.2023, the appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and requested relevant documents, which was denied on 03.05.2023.
The departmental enquiry named Ajay Kumar Rai, Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, Prayagraj, as the sole witness. In contrast, the criminal case involved 23 witnesses.
Aggrieved by the denial of documents and the continuation of departmental proceedings parallel to the criminal trial, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2023 seeking quashing of the departmental enquiry. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 20.12.2024. The present appeal challenged that order.
The appellant argued that the Single Judge failed to provide a speaking order and did not adequately consider that both the criminal and departmental proceedings were based on identical facts and evidence. It was contended that "the departmental proceeding and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both proceedings is common". Thus, the departmental enquiry should be stayed or quashed.
The respondents, represented through counsel, opposed the appeal and stated that the Single Judge had considered all aspects before arriving at the decision to dismiss the writ petition.
The Division Bench reviewed the records and the impugned order passed by the Single Judge. It recorded:
"From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that in the present case, in the criminal case there is an allegation of demand and acceptance of a bribe whereas the allegation in the departmental enquiry touches the discipline of the members of the Railway Protection Force."
The Bench noted that the article of charge issued on 24.04.2023 was framed under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 by the Competent Authority. The court stated:
"The departmental enquiry cannot be stayed for an indefinite period on account of the pendency of a criminal case. If after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the writ petitioner is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
It was further recorded:
"In the present case, the writ petitioner has not sought relief for stay of proceedings of the departmental enquiry but he has sought relief for quashing the entire departmental enquiry initiated against him in his petition. The writ petitioner did not assign any valid ground to quash the entire departmental enquiry rather he has raised grounds and citations to stay the further proceedings of the departmental enquiry till the conclusion of the criminal case."
Considering the above, the Division Bench concluded:
"We are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order."
The Division Bench accordingly dismissed the appeal stating:
"In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate
Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs. South East Central Railway and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:15837-DB
Case Number: WA No. 229 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
[Read/Download order]
