Dismissed¶37

Shailendra Kumar Mishra v. South East Central Railway

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2025WA/229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Departmental enquiry versus criminal case — simultaneous proceedings; refusal to stay departmental proceedings pending criminal trial; Railway Protection Force disciplinary action; article of charge under Rule 153, Railway Protection Force Act, 1987; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7 & 7A; IPC Section 120-B; writ petition under Article 226; standard of interference in intra-court appeal (palpable infirmity/perversity); challenge to non-speaking/mechanical Single Judge order; condonation of 15 days' delay (I.A. No.01/2025); WA No. 229 of 2025; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; decided 04.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No.01/2025 allowed); no substantive relief to the appellant, writ appeal dismissed. ¶37

Shailendra Kumar Mishra Vs South East Central Railway — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No.01/2025 allowed); no substantive relief to the appellant, writ appeal dismissed.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings of the departmental enquiry should be stayed on the ground that the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both proceedings is common. +2 more

¶28

Court's answer

Endorsing the learned Single Judge's reasoning as cogent and justifiable, a departmental enquiry cannot be stayed for an indefinite period on account of the pendency of a criminal case.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons; on a plain reading of the order the Division Bench noticed no palpable infirmities or perversities and was therefore not inclined to interfere in the intra Court appeal.

¶36

Key takeaways

The writ appeal lacks merit substance and is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Arvind Kumar Verma, J.), 04.04.2025, WA No. 229 of 2025 — Intra-Court writ appeal by a serving RPF Constable against dismissal of his writ petition seeking stay/quashing of a departmental enquiry (article of charge dated 24.4.2023 issued under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1987) on the ground that it rested on the same set of facts and common evidence as his pending criminal prosecution under Sections 7 & 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC. Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal condoned. Bench held that the Single Judge's order contained cogent and justifiable reasons, that a departmental enquiry cannot be stayed indefinitely on account of the pendency of a criminal case, and that no palpable infirmity or perversity was noticeable on a plain reading; interference in an intra Court appeal was accordingly unwarranted and the writ appeal was dismissed.

2025:CGHC:15837-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 229 of 2025

¶6

Shailendra Kumar Mishra S/o Late Jamadar Mishra Aged About 41 Years Currently Working As Constable Railway Protection Force Secr/ MANPREET KAUR Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.04 17:04:59 +0530

¶8

versus

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

1 - South East Central Railway Through Its Inspector General Cum Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force South Eastern Central Railway District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Senior Divisional Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force South Eastern Central Railway District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Assistant Security Commisssioner Railway Protection Force South Eastern Central Railway District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Assistant Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force South Eastern Central Railway District - Mirzapur Uttar Pradesh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

¶19

04.04.2025

¶20

1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, on I.A. No.01/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶21

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶22

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3870 of 2023 ( Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs. South Eastern Central Railway and Others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

4. Briefs facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was initially appointed in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) at Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh and at present, he is posted as a Constable at Bilaspur Division, Chhattisgarh. An FIR was registered against the writ petitioner and Chandan Kumar Jaiswal for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 7 & 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended in 2018) (for short 'the PC Act') and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code on 11.10.2022. They

¶24

¶25

were arrested on 12.10.2022. A charge-sheet was presented before the Special Judge, CBI, Lucknow. In the FIR, it was alleged that the co-accused Chandan Kumar Jaiswal demanded Rs.8,000/- on behalf of the writ petitioner from the complainant, namely, Gaurav Mishra, the owner of a Tea-Stall at Mirzapur Railway Station. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension from services vide order dated 12.10.2022 issued by the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The suspension of the writ petitioner was revoked vide order dated 17.11.2022 and the services of the writ petitioner were transferred to South East Central Railway, Bilaspur. The writ petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 20.12.2022. The article of charge was issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, SECR, Bilaspur on 24.4.2023. The writ petitioner appeared before the Enquiry OfÏcer on 28.4.2023 and moved an application for supply of the relevant documents and the same was rejected vide order dated 3.5.2023. In the departmental enquiry. there is one witness, namely, Ajay Kumar Rai, Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF, Prayagraj whereas in the criminal case, there are 23 witnesses. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner / appellant herein preferred WPS No. 2870 of 2023, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.12.2024, hence this present appeal.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge in a very mechanical manner has dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is a non-speaking order,

¶27

¶28

which is liable to set-aside by this Court. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and perverse and also impugned memorandum dated 24.04.2023 passed by the respondents is against the natural justice. The learned Single Judge passed order wrongly appreciating the document which was filed by the writ petitioner along with the writ petition. Therefore, order impugned passed by the leaned Single Judge is liable to be setaside. Further, the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that departmental proceeding and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both proceedings is common, the proceedings of the departmental enquiry should be stayed. Also, in the present case, the charges in the criminal case and the departmental enquiry are almost similar, therefore, the article of charge dated 24.4.2023 issued against the writ petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶29

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for.

¶30

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record.

¶31

8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner /

¶32

¶33

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 article of charge was issued according to Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1987 by the Competent Authority and 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. Learned Single further held that 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, in view of the same, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner.

¶34

9. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

10. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶38

Sd/Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶39

Manpreet

Shailendra Kumar Mishra v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Kumar Mishra v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amzad Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 21 Raipur Vs Shri B.L. Agrawal

Kawasi Lakhma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jyoti Bandaru Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vicky @ Vikas Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yasif Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh