Satyavrat Verma, J. – 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 vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 supplementary 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 persons concerned from criminal proceeding. The learned counsel next submits that this aspect have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions, the only difference being that such decision have not been unanimously laying down the same law, as such there seems to be a diversion of opinion amongst all the Hon’ble High Courts.

4. The learned counsel next submits that it would be apposite to consider the case of P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1, which set the ball rolling for discourse on the issue pertaining to continuance of criminal proceeding when the person concerned was exonerated from the departmental proceeding. This ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court became the focal point of discussion for its finding in the following paragraph of the judgment: –

“Para-23 Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27.3.1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.”

5. It is further submitted that while P.S. Rajya (supra) has reiterated categories of cases by way of illustrations, wherein power could be exercised for quashing criminal prosecution, but it was primarily laid down for the first time in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). It is next submitted that since in P.S. Rajya (supra) a new issue had arisen i.e. whether exoneration in the departmental proceeding would lead to discharge from criminal proceeding, the said issue was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State through S.P.E. & CBI, Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Krishna Mohan & Anr., (2007) 14 SCC 667, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: –

“32. Mr. Nageshwar Rao relied upon a decision of this Court in P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar [(1996) 9 SCC 1]. The fact situation obtaining therein was absolutely different. In that case, in the vigilance report, the delinquent officer was shown to be innocent. It was at that juncture, an application for quashing of the proceedings was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed relying on State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335], hold