Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
The Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot – Appellant
Versus
Chandrashekar & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13057 of 2025)
Decided On : 06-01-2026
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482[Section 528 of BNSS] – Maintainability of criminal proceeding – Disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, even on an identical allegation, are parallel proceedings, relevance of conclusion in one is often contended to be binding on other – In a disciplinary proceeding, proof is of preponderance of probabilities while in a criminal proceeding, it has higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – In a disciplinary enquiry employer satisfies itself as to whether misconduct alleged is proved and if proved, decides on proportionate punishment that should be imposed; both of which are in exclusive domain of employer, to be determined on standard of preponderance of probabilities – In a criminal prosecution launched what assumes significance is criminality of act complained of or detected which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Both are independent of each other not only for reason of nature of proceedings and standard of proof, but also for reason of adjudication being carried on by two different entities, regulated by a different set of rules and more importantly decided on the basis of evidence led in independent proceedings – If evidence is not led properly in one case, it cannot govern decision in other case where evidence is led separately and independently. (Paras 2 and 9)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482] – Maintainability of criminal proceeding – Enquiry Officer often is appointed as an independent person who would have no connection with management to ensure against any allegation of bias – A retired Judicial Officer being appointed as an enquiry officer does not confer enquiry report any higher value or greater sanctity than that is normally available to such reports – Enquiry Officer fell into error by requiring proof at a higher level than that necessary under preponderance of probabilities and so did Disciplinary Authority, in concurring with same – Criminal Court has ample powers to ensure presence of a witness in a criminal proceeding, which Enquiry Officer does not possess – Trap was laid by ACB, and prosecution was conducted at behest of Lokayukta – Even without examination of Inspector who laid trap there was sufficient proof on standard of preponderance of probabilities to find delinquent guilty of charge of demand and acceptance of bribe – Continuation of criminal proceedings permitted. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is Lokayukta of the State of Karnataka, an independent body tasked also to conduct enquiries on complaints of corruption and initiate and continue prosecution; such powers having been statutorily conferred under Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. On facts, respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) with Works and Maintenance Division, HESCOM, Bagalkot regulated by Karnataka Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited Regulations, was alleged to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor to clear five bills.
Findings of Court:
Since disciplinary authority has accepted enquiry report, there cannot be reopening of same based on the findings herein; but conviction in criminal case would bring in consequences as mandated by rules regulating service, specifically reserved in order of disciplinary authority.
Result : Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of disciplinary and criminal proceedings is independent. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. corruption charges and evidence assessment. (Para 3 , 14 , 17) |
| 3. importance of adherence to judicial precedents. (Para 5 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. distinction between adjudication and criminal liability. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. standard of proof varies between disciplinary and criminal proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 , 19) |
| 6. role of the disciplinary authority and implications on the criminal process. (Para 13 , 15 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Despite this Court having consistently held that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, even on an identical allegation, are parallel proceedings, the relevance of the conclusion in one is often contended to be binding on the other. Trite is the principle that in a disciplinary proceeding, the proof is of preponderance of probabilities while in a criminal proceeding, it has the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Often it is argued that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings should inure to the benefit of the accused/delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding too. In the present case, we have a contrary contention of the disciplinary proceedings having exonerated the delinquent employee, who seeks absolution from the criminal prosecution. The contention is that when the allegations could not be proved in a disciplinary proceeding where the requirement is only of preponderance of probabilities, surely it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The appellant is the Lokayukta of the State of Karnataka, an independent body tasked also to conduct enquiries on complaints of corruption and initiate and continue prosecution; such powers having been statutorily conferred under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. On facts, suffice it to notice that the respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) with the Works and Maintenance Division, HESCOM, Bagalkot regulated by the Karnataka Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited Regulations, was alleged to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor to clear five bills, at the rate of Rupees two thousand each. The contractor complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau1[for short, the ACB] who prepared a trap, with identifiable, powdered notes kept in a packet entrusted with the complainant, to be handed over to the Executive Engineer. The trap was successful, and the notes were recovered from the pocket of the Executive Engineer whose hands turned pink on dipping in the prepared solution, which proved the taint of corruption.
4. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and so was criminal prosecution launched, the former by the department itself and the latter by the Lokayukta who is the appellant herein. On the claim that the departmental proceedings ended in exoneration, the delinquent employee approached the High Court, for quashing the criminal proceedings. The High Court by the impugned judgment relied on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. , (2011) 3 SCC 581 a three-Judge Bench decision to hold that if there is an exoneration on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, then criminal proceedings on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue especially based on the principle of higher standard of proof in criminal cases. The learned Single Judge also refused to follow a later judgment of this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, (2012) 9 SCC 685; finding the later judgment to be per incuriam, having been passed in ignorance of the earlier one.
5. There can be no doubt regarding the principle that if the later Bench holds contrary to the earlier Bench decision of coequal strength, on the same point, the contrary dictum expressed by the later Bench would be per incuriam as held by a Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680. But the question arising herein is as to whet
Exoneration in a disciplinary proceeding does not automatically terminate criminal prosecution; both proceedings are governed by different evidentiary standards.
If the exoneration in the departmental proceedings is on merits and the allegations are found to be not sustainable, the criminal prosecution on the same set of facts cannot be allowed to continue.
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
Point of law : If allegations in the departmental inquiry could not be proved on merit and the person is held to be innocent, criminal prosecution on the said facts cannot be permitted to be continue....
Exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings based on the same allegations, as the higher standard of proof in criminal law makes it unlikely tha....
Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings, but substantial overlaps in evidence may necessitate reconsideration of the latter's findings. Procedural fai....
The standards of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceedings differ; acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action.
Criminal proceedings cannot continue if the accused has been exonerated in departmental inquiries for identical charges, due to the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
