Departmental enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution — Effect of exoneration — When criminal proceedings cannot be quashed

advocatemmmohan

Departmental enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution — Effect of exoneration — When criminal proceedings cannot be quashed

---

HEADNOTE (Consolidated, Court-faithful)

Departmental exoneration — Whether bars criminal prosecution

Paras 2, 6–8, 9–10, 12–13, 15–19

Exoneration of a delinquent employee in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto warrant quashing of criminal prosecution arising out of the same allegations. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent and parallel, governed by different standards of proof, conducted by different authorities, and decided on evidence adduced in each forum. The principle in Radheshyam Kejriwal applies only where exoneration in adjudicatory proceedings is on merits, negating the very substratum of the allegation. Where departmental exoneration is not on merits but on account of non-examination of a witness or evidentiary lapses, such exoneration cannot form the basis for quashing criminal proceedings. The decision in Ajay Kumar Tyagi governs cases where departmental and criminal proceedings are conducted by distinct authorities, and departmental findings do not bind the criminal court.

---

ANALYSIS (What the Supreme Court Precisely Held)

1. Parallel but independent proceedings (Paras 2, 9)

The Court reaffirmed the settled position that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, even when founded on identical allegations. The former proceeds on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Scope of Radheshyam Kejriwal clarified (Paras 6–8)

The Court explained that Radheshyam Kejriwal was rendered in the context of adjudication and prosecution under the same statute (FERA) by the same authority, where the adjudication conclusively held that the alleged transaction itself never occurred. Such a finding destroyed the substratum of the prosecution.

That ratio cannot be mechanically extended to departmental enquiries under service law.

3. Applicability of Ajay Kumar Tyagi (Paras 10–13)

The Court held that Ajay Kumar Tyagi squarely applies where:

• the criminal prosecution is conducted by an independent agency (ACB/Lokayukta), and

• the departmental enquiry is conducted by the employer.

In such cases, departmental exoneration does not govern or conclude criminal liability.

4. Nature of exoneration — not on merits (Paras 8, 16–18)

The enquiry report in the present case did not exonerate the delinquent on merits. The finding was based on:

• non-examination of the ACB Inspector, and

• independent witnesses being outside the room during handing over of the bribe.

The Court held that this was not a finding that the demand or acceptance of bribe did not occur, but at best a consequence of procedural or evidentiary deficiency in the departmental enquiry.

5. Criminal court not bound by departmental lapses (Paras 16–18)

The Court emphasized that:

• criminal courts have ample coercive powers to secure witnesses,

• anticipated lapses in prosecution cannot be presumed, and

• criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled merely because departmental enquiry failed due to lack of diligence.

6. No total exoneration on merits (Paras 17–18)

On examining the enquiry evidence, the Court found that:

• the complainant and independent witnesses had spoken to demand, acceptance, recovery and phenolphthalein test, and

• even on a preponderance of probabilities, guilt could have been established.

Therefore, this was not a case of complete exoneration negating the charge itself.

7. Consequence (Paras 19–20)

The High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and continuation of criminal prosecution permitted. The Court clarified that while the departmental proceedings remain closed, conviction in the criminal case would entail service consequences, as already reserved by the disciplinary authority.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Exoneration of an employee in departmental proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution on the same allegations unless such exoneration is on merits and negates the very substratum of the charge; where departmental exoneration is founded on procedural or evidentiary lapses and the criminal prosecution is conducted by an independent agency, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on that basis.