The Supreme Court has held that exoneration of a public servant in departmental proceedings does not automatically warrant quashing of criminal prosecution, unless such exoneration is on merits and strikes at the very substratum of the allegations.
The case stemmed from allegations that the respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) with HESCOM, Bagalkot, demanded a bribe of ₹10,000 from an electrical contractor for clearing five pending bills. Acting on the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ABC) laid a trap, during which tainted currency notes were recovered from the respondent’s pocket and the phenolphthalein test turned positive, indicating acceptance of the bribe.
Parallel disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution were initiated. While the departmental enquiry resulted in the respondent’s exoneration, the Lokayukta continued with criminal prosecution. The respondent approached the Karnataka High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal case, contending that exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings precluded continuation of criminal prosecution. Accepting this plea, the High Court relied on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, and quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that criminal prosecution requires a higher standard of proof than disciplinary proceedings. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Allowing the Lokayukta’s appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court clarified that the exoneration in the departmental enquiry could not be construed as an exoneration on merits. It noted that the enquiry report had concluded in favour of the delinquent “for reason of the Officer in charge of the trap having not been examined”, and held that this was “not at all an exoneration on merits, but more a discharge for lack of diligence.” The Court emphasised that such an outcome could not be treated as a finding that the allegations themselves were unsustainable, nor could it form the basis for quashing the criminal prosecution
The bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah has reiterated that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent of each other, not only because they are governed by different standards of proof but also because they are conducted by different authorities under distinct procedural regimes. The Court observed that while a disciplinary enquiry proceeds on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, a criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasised that “if evidence is not led properly in one case, it cannot govern the decision in the other case where evidence is led separately and independently.”
Applying the principles laid down in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685, the Court held that the respondent’s case did not fall within the narrow exception carved out in Radheshyam Kejriwal, where exoneration on merits would justify quashing criminal proceedings. The Court found that the materials on record, including the complainant’s testimony and evidence of a successful trap, disclosed sufficient grounds for continuation of the criminal case.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and permitted the criminal prosecution to proceed, while clarifying that although the disciplinary proceedings could not be reopened, any conviction in the criminal case would entail consequences under the applicable service rules.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Mr. Abhishek Wadiyar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, Adv.
Respondent- Mr. Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR Mr. Md. Zeeshan Ali, Adv. Mr. Amit Pandey, Adv.
