Karnataka Lokayuktha Vs Chandrashekar & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Exoneration in Departmental Enquiry Not Conclusive: Criminal Prosecution for Bribery Can Proceed Independently
Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution in Trap Cases: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Radheshyam Kejriwal and Ajay Kumar Tyagi
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent and parallel remedies, governed by different standards of proof. While a disciplinary enquiry is decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, a criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution arising from the same facts.
The Court clarified that the principle laid down in Radheshyam Kejriwal applies only where the exoneration is on merits and the very substratum of the allegation is found to be non-existent, particularly when both adjudication and prosecution are under the same statutory framework. In contrast, where the departmental exoneration results from procedural lapses, non-examination of witnesses, or an erroneous application of a higher standard of proof, it cannot be treated as a clean acquittal on merits.
Relying on Ajay Kumar Tyagi, the Court held that in trap cases involving demand and acceptance of bribe, the criminal court must independently assess the evidence led before it, and anticipated deficiencies in prosecution evidence cannot justify pre-emptive quashing. Since the enquiry report in the present case did not amount to a total exoneration on merits, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings. The criminal prosecution was therefore permitted to continue, subject to the settled principle that disciplinary proceedings, once concluded, cannot be reopened, though a criminal conviction would entail statutory service consequences.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
