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 continued on the underlying principle of criminal trial needing higher standard of proof.

ORDER :

The petitioner before this Court is seeking quashing of complaint dated 26-10-2015 and the resultant FIR in Crime No.659 of 2015 dated 28-10-2015.

2. Sans details, facts germane for consideration of the lis, are as follows:-

The petitioner was an employee of the Government of Karnataka and at the relevant point in time was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer, District Ayush Office, Bellary. The 2nd respondent registers a complaint on 26-10-2015 alleging that the petitioner along with four others had indulged in certain irregularities in the admissions given to students belonging to different States for the first year bachelor degree in Unani Medical Sciences and further alleged that the petitioner had indulged in creation of documents for eligibility of those students for professional courses notwithstanding the fact that those students did not have any eligibility to enter professional courses. The said complaint resulted in registration of a FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.659 of 2015 for offences punishable under Section 34, 408, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Government by an order dated 19-12-2015 referred the matter to the 3rd respondent/Criminal Investigation Department (‘CID’ for short) for investigation and report.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the 1st respondent/Government decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and in furtherance of the said decision, issued a charge sheet and later, a retired District Judge was appointed as the Inquiry Officer in terms of Government Order dated 18-07-2016. The Inquiry Officer after holding an elaborate enquiry held the petitioner and others not guilty of the allegations. The petitioner, in particular, was held not guilty of all the 21 allegations that were levelled against him in terms of the charge sheet issued under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

4. Pursuant to the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 20-02-2017, holding the petitioner not guilty of the allegations, the Disciplinary Authority in terms of an order dated 12-07-2017 accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and exonerated the petitioner of all the allegations. A further communication is also directed to be made to the CID to drop the investigation against the petitioner and four others in the light of the departmental inquiry being held in favour of those employees. It is at that stage, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the present writ petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. This Court by its order dated 29.05.2018 directed stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.659 of 2015.

5. Heard Sri B.K.Sampath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that criminal proceedings should not have been permitted to proceed further in the light of exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental inquiry and an order being passed by the competent authority for withdrawal of investigation conducted by the CID in furtherance of registration of criminal case. He would also submit that, if the criminal proceedings were to be proceeded with, it would be an exercise in futility and agonizing to the petitioner who is now retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

7. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader in support of continuance of prosecution would submit that merely because the petitioner gets exonerated in a departmental inquiry, the same would not ipso facto mean that criminal proceedings against the petitioner should not be continued. She would submit that subsequent to the letter of the Government seeking withdrawal of criminal proceedings, a communication is made by the Departmen