Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not prevent criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act if the charges involve higher proof standards; 'public servant' includes cooperative bank employees under government control.

JUDGMENT :

BABITA RANI, J.

1.Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mayank Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 and Sri Akbar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Instant criminal writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 19.09.2025 lodged at Case Crime No. 0023 of 2025 at Police Station- Lucknow Sector Vigilance Establishment, Lucknow under Sections 13 (1) (B) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned enquiry report dated 04.07.2025 together with the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by opposite party no. 1, after summoning the original of the same from the said opposite parties.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.08.2022 and 25.08.2022 passed by Opposite Party No. 1, as is contained in Annexure No. 3 and & respectively to this writ petition, and all other consequential action taken pursuant to it may also be set aside."

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that a perusal of the impugned First Information Report would indicate that the said First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988").

4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was earlier working as a Manager, Gr-III in the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd and presently working as Deputy General Manager in the same bank.

5. The impugned First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (b) & 31 (2) of the Act, 1988 by alleging that although from a valid legal sources, the amount earned by the petitioner is approximately Rs. 2, 52,45,522.88/- but he has spent an amount of Rs. 6,30,30,925.52/- during the period, and thus has spent of amount of Rs. 3,77,85,372.64/- in excess. He also failed to submit any satisfactory explanation for the same and in view of the inquiry conducted against him, he has been found to be prima facie guilty and his conduct falls within the ambit of the aforesaid sections of the Act, 1988.

6. Raising a challenge to the impugned First Information Report, the instant criminal writ petition has been filed.

7. The grounds for challenging the impugned First Information Report are that (a) earlier for the same charges, a departmental inquiry had been initiated against the petitioner by means of the charge sheet dated 06.09.2018, a copy of which is annexure 34 to the writ petition. The charge no. 2 of the said charge sheet pertained to the charge of disproportionate assets for which the impugned First Information Report has been lodged. The said departmental inquiry resulted in an inquiry report dated 15.10.2018, a copy of which is annexure 36 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner had been exonerated of all the charges and which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 14.12.2018, a copy of which is annexure 39 to the writ petition. Consequently,