TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 2000/- for clearing the file and a sum of ₹ 1000/- was to be paid initially and the balance amount after the clearance of file. On the basis of the information lodged, a trap was laid and, according to the prosecution, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe of ₹ 1000/-. This led to registration of the first information report under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 19th of September, 2002 and the accused was put on trial. Charges were framed by the Special Judge. In respect of the same incident, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the accused and the Article of Charges was served on him. In the departmental proceeding it was alleged that the accused being a public servant in discharge of his official duties by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise, abusing his official position, demanded, accepted and obtained ₹ 1000/- (One Thousand) as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Sh. Surinder Singh S/o Shri Ram Bhajan r/o H.No. 432-A, Gali No. 2, 80 Sq. Yards, Village Mandoli, Delhi in consideration for giving a report on the water connection . The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an abuse of the process of Court. I find that the charge in the present case is based on the same allegations which were under consideration before the Enquiry Officer of the Jal Board. If the charge could not be proved in the departmental proceedings where the standard of proof was much lower it is very unlikely that the same charge could be proved in a criminal trial where the standard of proof is quite stringent comparatively. Thus, the prosecution of the petitioner in criminal proceedings would only result in his harassment. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this special leave petition. Leave granted. It is relevant here to state that after quashing of the criminal proceeding by the High Court, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 25th of March, 2009, exonerated the accused of the charges subject to the condition that if any appeal is filed by the State and an order contrary to the impugned High Court order dated 25.08.2008 is received, the matter will be re-opened . The disciplinary authority had referred to the order of the High Court quashing the criminal prosecution and exonerated the accused on that ground alone. When the matter came up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we find substance in the submission of Mr. Attry. True it is that the inquiry officer has submitted its report and found the allegation to have not been proved but, that is not the end of the matter. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority is not bound by the conclusion of the inquiry officer and, after giving a tentative reason for disagreement and providing the delinquent employee an opportunity of hearing, can differ with the conclusion and record a finding of guilt and punish the delinquent employee. In the present case, before the said stage reached, the accused filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for terminating the criminal proceedings and the High Court fell into error in quashing the said proceedings on the premise that the accused has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding. As the order of the High Court is founded on an erroneous premise, the same cannot be allowed to stand. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the writ petition filed by the accused himself seeking conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the High Court had observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its report elaborately and ultimately came to a conclusion that the subsequent valuation reports on which CBI placed reliance are of doubtful nature. The same view was taken by the Union Public Service Commission. Even otherwise the value given as basis for the charge-sheet is not the value given in the report subsequently given by the valuers. Thereafter, this Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and reproduced the illustrations laid down for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution. The categories of cases by way of illustrations, wherein power could be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice read as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first infor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs on criminal prosecution on identical charge. The decision in the case of P.S. Rajya (Supra), therefore does not lay down any proposition that on exoneration of an employee in the departmental proceeding, the criminal prosecution on the identical charge or the evidence has to be quashed. It is well settled that the decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not what flows from it. Mere fact that in P.S. Rajya (Supra), this Court quashed the prosecution when the accused was exonerated in the departmental proceeding would not mean that it was quashed on that ground. This would be evident from paragraph 23 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the crimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be pursued. Ultimately this Court concluded as follows: 33. The said decision was, therefore, rendered on the facts obtaining therein and cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial. This point also fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Supdt. of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary, (1995) 6 SCC 225, where quashing was sought for on two grounds and one of the grounds urged was that the accused having been exonerated of the charge in the departmental proceeding, the prosecution is fit to be quashed. Said submission did not find favour with this Court and it rejected the same in the following words: 6. The second ground of departmental exoneration by the disciplinary authority is also not relevant. What is necessary and material is whether the facts collected during investigation would constitute the offence for which the sanction has been sought for. Decision of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Bhutiani, (2009) 10 SCC 674, also throws light on the question involved. In the said case, the accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
