Summary
| Category | Data |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000077-000077 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 34270/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether exoneration in a disciplinary enquiry on the lower standard of proof automatically bars criminal prosecution on the same facts |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | An Executive Engineer was trapped by the ACB for demanding ₹2,000 per bill as bribe. A departmental enquiry discharged him due to non-examination of the trap inspector and distant positioning of independent witnesses. He then succeeded in quashing criminal charges on the strength of that exoneration. The High Court relied on Radheshyam Kejriwal. The Supreme Court granted leave and held that the enquiry did not amount to a merits-based exoneration by the same authority and criminal proceedings must continue. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; tribunals handling service or anti-corruption matters |
| Distinguishes | Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. (2011) 3 SCC 581 |
| Follows | State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not automatically quash criminal prosecution unless it is a merits-based acquittal by the same adjudicating body.
- Disciplinary and criminal proceedings are independent: different standards of proof and adjudicators.
- An enquiry discharge for procedural lapses (e.g., failure to examine a witness) cannot be treated as exoneration on merits.
- Lawyers can rely on this decision to resist quashing applications based solely on departmental enquiry reports.
- Clarifies that Radheshyam Kejriwal is confined to FERA proceedings by the same authority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- A departmental enquiry is governed by service rules, decided on preponderance of probabilities by the employer; criminal trials require proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
- Radheshyam Kejriwal applies where penalty adjudication and prosecution are by the same entity under FERA and the contravention is found non-existent on merits—therefore undermining prosecution.
- In distinct-entity cases (Ajay Kumar Tyagi and the present case), an enquiry report—even if accepted by the disciplinary authority—does not bind the criminal court.
- The enquiry in this case exonerated the officer due to procedural deficiencies (non-examination of the trap inspector; positioning of witnesses), not a merits-based finding.
- Under Section 482 CrPC, criminal process can only be quashed if continuation amounts to abuse of process, which is absent here.
- The Supreme Court allowed prosecution to continue and clarified that a later criminal conviction may invoke service consequences reserved in the disciplinary order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Karnataka Lokayukta/ACB):
- Disciplinary and criminal processes are independent and governed by different standards.
- The departmental enquiry did not exonerate on merits but on procedural lapses—hence criminal prosecution must continue.
Respondent (Executive Engineer):
- Exoneration in the departmental enquiry (preponderance standard) should prevent criminal trial on the same facts.
- High Court’s reliance on Radheshyam Kejriwal justifies quashing the criminal charges.
Factual Background
An Executive Engineer with HESCOM was accused of demanding ₹2,000 per pending bill (total ₹10,000) as bribe. The contractor complained to the ACB, which laid a trap using chemically marked and powdered notes. The officer was caught accepting the notes, hands tested positive for taint, and criminal prosecution was launched by the Lokayukta. Concurrently, departmental disciplinary proceedings were conducted, and the officer was exonerated due to the non-examination of the trap inspector and the positioning of two independent witnesses outside the office. He secured quashing of the criminal charges in the High Court, which applied Radheshyam Kejriwal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the enquiry discharge did not bar trial.
Statutory Analysis
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: Empowers Lokayukta to conduct anti-corruption enquiries and initiate prosecution independently of service disciplinary actions.
- Section 482, CrPC: Inherent power to quash criminal proceedings only in cases of abuse of process.
- Service regulations: Disciplinary enquiries apply the preponderance of probabilities; criminal trials demand proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Article 20(2) and Section 300, CrPC: Not engaged by departmental enquiries as they are not prosecutions by a “court of law.”
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissent or concurrence was recorded; the judgment was delivered unanimously by the two-judge Bench.
Procedural Innovations
- Reaffirms that disciplinary and criminal proceedings can proceed concurrently.
- Clarifies prerequisites for applying Section 482 CrPC when departmental enquiries yield exoneration.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Distinguishes Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. (2011) 3 SCC 581