Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically quash criminal proceedings, which must be determined based on evidence in court.

JUDGMENT :

Samit Gopal, J.

1. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/Union of India and the opposite party no. 3/C.B.I. and perused the records.

2. The present Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Subhan Ali with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, Most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to quash the Special Case No. 08/2020 CBI Vs. Mohan Singh & others along with cognizance and summoning order dated 18.12.2020, arising out of Case Crime RC No.1202017A0002, CNR No. UPGZO-1020758 2020 (Computer Registration No. 393/20) dated 16.01.2017 under section 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. read with section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 66 Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station-Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, pending before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption)(CBI) Court No. 1 Ghaziabad and entire proceedings carried out pursuant thereto, to the extent applicant is concerned.

It is, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 08/2020 CBI Vs. Mohan Singh & others along with cognizance and summoning order dated 18.12.2020 to the extent applicant is concerned, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) (CBI) Court No. 1 Ghaziabad, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, and/or may pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. The First Information Report of the case was lodged on the basis of a complaint dated 13.01.2017 received from R.K. Srivastava on 16.01.2017 with the subject of fraudulent withdrawal of funds from accounts maintained in the Post Office. The accused named therein were are Rajiv Shankar the then Sub-Postmaster, Govindpuri (Modinagare), Ghaziabad, Mohan Singh the then Postal Agent, Head Post Office, District Ghaziabad, Deepak Garg a private person and other unknown persons.

4. The allegations in the First Information Report are that during the year 2015 Ghaziabad Head Post Office was under the process of migration from Sanchay Post Offline software to Finacle online software. Before migration 61 already closed accounts being 49-RD accounts and 12 MIS accounts were reopened at Ghaziabad Head Office on different dates by making fake deposit entries by the Data Entry person. The said accounts were closed at Ghaziabad Head Office and Govindpuri Sub Office on different dates on the basis of fake and forged documents and the money which was transferred in the said accounts, was fraudulently withdrawn from the said closed accounts. Further the facts of the case are not being dilated since the same have at the present moment no purpose and have not been argued and placed.

5. The matter was investigated and a charge sheet no. 09, dated 25.10.2020 was filed by the C.B.I. against 08 persons including the applicant under Sections 120B, r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 I.T. Act, 2000 and substantive offence, on which the court of Special Judge (C.B.I.), Court No. 1, Ghaziabad vide order dated 18.12.2020 took cognizance and summoned the accused persons. A departmental inquiry against the applicant was also taken up by the Department which concluded vide order dated 22.11.2023 in which the applicant was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. The operative portion of the same is in paragraph nos. 08 and 09 of the said order which read as under:-

“8. WHEREAS from the case records and discussion made above, it is observed that violation of rules by the Charged Official alleged in the memorandum of charges