Ganesh Manjhi Vs Union of India

ii. That this Hon'ble court may direct to respondents to stay the further proceedings till the decision of this case or till the petitioner get bail by any court of law or he becomes capable of effectively defending himself,

¶24

iii. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently in jail in connection with Crime No.02/2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Dantewada. During the pendency of the criminal case, the disciplinary authority has issued a charge-sheet initiating departmental enquiry against him. It is contended that the petitioner, being in custody, is not in a position to effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings, collect and produce relevant documents, engage with the defence witnesses or properly instruct his defence representative. Consequently, continuation of the departmental enquiry during his incarceration would result in denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity of defence and would offend the principles of natural justice. He further submits that unless the petitioner is released on bail or is otherwise able to effectively participate in the enquiry, irreparable prejudice would be caused to him and the enquiry may culminate in an ex parte decision. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel places reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State

¶26

3

¶27

Bank of India & others Vs. Neelam Nag and another {(2016) 9 SCC 491}.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in connection with Crime No. 02/2026, and a charge-sheet has already been filed against him before the competent criminal court. It is further submitted that, consequent upon the registration of the said criminal case, the competent disciplinary authority has also initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the applicable service rules. Learned counsel contends that there is no legal infirmity in the continuation of the departmental enquiry merely because the petitioner is presently in judicial custody. It is submitted that the petitioner's incarceration, by itself, does not deprive him of the opportunity to effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶29

I have heard learend counsel for the parties perused the pleadings and documents.

¶30

Having considered the aforesaid submission and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is presently in jail and prima facie may not be in a position to effectively defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings, hence, the petition is allowed and the chargesheet as also the consequential proceedings are kept in abeyance at this juncture. The respondents are at liberty to continue with the

¶31

4

¶32

Departmental Enquiry as and when the petitioner released from the jail. The petitioner is directed to intimate the disciplinary authority as and when he will release from jail.

¶33

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

¶34

merits of this case.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶37

Amardeep

Ganesh Manjhi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Manjhi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chand Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manit Singh Wadhwa Vs Rupchand Agrawal

Vijay Mashrani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh