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.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.225 of 2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant makes an application before the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural for conversion of agricultural land to residential purposes, for which the complainant visits the office and meets the Revenue Inspector, accused No.2. Accused No.2 is said to have demanded bribe for completion of the work of conversion. The complainant then meets accused No.3 who is then said to have demanded bribe for himself and the petitioner. Accused No.3 was a Second Division Assistant. The dates of demand of alleged bribe are on 31-03-2015 and 27-04-2015. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner and others alleging demand and acceptance of bribe. Trap was sought to be laid on two dates 29-04-2015 and 02-05-2015, both the attempts fail. On 17-05-2015, the complainant meets the petitioner and accused No.3, it is again alleged that the accused No.3 demanded bribe. A third round of trap is said to have laid in which an individual by name Muniyappa accused No.4 informs the Lokayuktha that the bribe was accepted by him at the instance of accused No.3 and the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner comes into the web of crime. Sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner, after which, the Lokayuktha Police file a charge sheet against the petitioner for the afore-quoted offences. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence against the petitioner.

4. After the concerned Court took cognizance of the offences, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner on the same set of facts. The petitioner calls that in question before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal sets aside the enquiry that was sought to be conducted against the petitioner on its merit, exonerating the petitioner. This becomes final. The order is dated 04-01-2018, 5 years have passed by and the State has not questioned the order of the Tribunal. In the light of the said exoneration by the Tribunal, the petitioner has presented the subject petition seeking quashment of the proceedings drawing analogy that exoneration by the Tribunal amounts to exoneration by a Disciplinary Authority and therefore, seeks quashment of the entire proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar would submit that the order of the Tribunal exonerates the petitioner, 5 years ago and such exoneration has become final. The departmental enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner was on the same set of facts, the evidence was the same. Therefore, it is his submission that he is entitled to draw the benefit of such judicial order, in seeking quashment of the impugned proceedings. He would seek to place reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) RADHESHYAM KEJRIWAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL – (2011) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 581;

(ii) ASHOO SURENDRANATH TEWARI V. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW, CBI – (2020) 9 SUPREME COURT CASES 636;

(iii) DR. MINAKETAN PANI V. STATE OF ORISSA – 2022 SCC ONLINE ORI 3304;

(iv) A.L. JAYARAMU V. STATE OF KARNATAKA – 2021 SCC ONLINE KAR 15854.

6. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri B. B. Patil appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the Tribunal has gone into the merit of the matter which it ought not to have done and merely because the order is in favour of the petitioner, it cannot be said that criminal proceedings also should be quashed against him. Exoneration may have been 5 years ago, nonetheless, criminal proceedings are continued and should be permitted to be con