JUDGMENT :

SATYAVRAT VERMA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan and the learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance Mr. Arvind Kumar.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the criminal proceeding should be allowed to continue, when the petitioner based on the same allegation was exonerated in the departmental proceeding. It it next submitted that while it is a settled position of law that being acquitted in a criminal case will not debar the employer from subjecting the delinquent employee to disciplinary proceeding on the same set of charges, but then the converse of this i.e. a person exonerated in departmental proceeding would automatically be discharged in the criminal proceeding seems unsettled.

3. It is next submitted that while the general illustration/categories of cases for quashing have been previously laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, but then there seems to have an intriguing discord pertaining to whether exoneration in departmental proceeding would lead to discharge of the accused p