Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution on the same allegations due to differing standards of proof in each context.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State- respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned charge sheet No. 9 of 2023 dated 20.8.2023 as well as the entire proceeding of criminal case No. 52/1652 of 2023-State Vs. Braham Singh (arising out of case crime No. 281/2019, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar), based on the impugned charge-sheet, presently pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Meerut, under Sections 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988-Amended Act 2018 and the order dated 10.10.2023, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Meerut by which the learned Special Judge, has taken the cognizance and issued process against the applicant, to face trial, under section 13(1)b read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 [Amendment Act 2018].

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA submitted that in the present matter, there is no need to call counter affidavit as entire relevant materials have already been annexed alongwith the instant application and therefore, instant application may be heard and disposed off, finally.

4. In view of the above, with the consent of parties the instant application is being heard and disposed of without calling counter and rejoinder affidavits.

Brief facts of the case:-

5. FIR of the present case was lodged on 30.3.2019 against the applicant under section 13(1)(e), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and according to the FIR, applicant was posted as Assistant Manager, Grade-II, Greater NOIDA, Development Authority and from his known sources during check period his income was Rs. 43,71,394.00/- but his expenditure during this period was Rs. 10395229.37/- and therefore, his expenditure is disproportionate to his known income and his expenditure was 137.80% higher than his known income.

6. After registration of the FIR investigation was conducted and during investigation Investigating Officer found that Vigilance Inquiry Report on the basis of which FIR was lodged was correct and expenditure of the applicant was in excess of his known source of income during the check period and thereafter he submitted charge sheet against him on 20.8.2023 under section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(1) (2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. After submission of charge sheet court concerned took the cognizance and issued summons to the applicant.

8. Hence the instant application.

Submission made on behalf of the applicant:-

9. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by way of instant application applicant is challenging the charge sheet filed against him and entire proceeding of the criminal case pending against him solely on the ground that although as per the prosecution expenditure of the applicant was higher than his known source of income during check period but on the basis of the same allegation when departmental inquiry was conducted then in the departmental inquiry he has been exonerated.

10. He further submitted that from the annexure-7 to the affidavit filed in support to the instant application it reflects, when on the basis of the complaint a departmenta