ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 28-6-2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Satna in File No. SP/Satna/Steno/DE/08/2016 by which the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet as well as departmental enquiry against him.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14-5-2016 S.P.E. (Lokayukt) prepared a trap and the petitioner along with Head Constable 279 Dadan Singh and Constable 509 Mukesh Dwivedi were made accused in Crime No. 153/2016 for offences under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was a part of conspiracy in taking bribe. It is submitted that on 28-6-2016 departmental charge-sheet has been issued which is based on vague charges. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer cannot be appointed by order dated 19-7-2016 and accordingly the charge-sheet and the departmental enquiry has been challenged.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case by judgment dated 16-12-2021 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Satna in S.C. Lok-02/2018. Since the charges in the departmental enquiry were leveled on the basis of criminal prosecution of the petitioner, and as the petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, the departmental enquiry should be dropped. It is further submitted that since the complainant had turned hostile in the criminal trial, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty in the departmental enquiry.

4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that even after exoneration of an accused in a criminal case he can be proceeded against in a departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that charges which are leveled against the petitioner are clear and unambiguous.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. So far as acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is concerned, it is clear from the judgment that the complainant had turned hostile. So far as submission of the petitioner that now he cannot be held guilty in a departmental enquiry is concerned, it is sufficient to mention here that the Supreme Court in the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1980) 2 SCC 390 has held that even if the complainant has turned hostile still the case is to be decided on the basis of surrounding circumstances. Furthermore, by virtue of interim order dated 3-8-2016 it is sufficient to mention here that the proceedings in the departmental enquiry could not proceed and the statement of the complainant has not been recorded in the departmental enquiry. The degree of proof in a criminal case is completely different from the degree of proof in the departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. vs. K. Allabakash , (2000) 10 SCC 177 has held as under:

1. The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police was convicted of the offence under section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 for causing the death of a prisoner in the police station. The High Court, on an appeal filed by the respondent, acquitted him for want of evidence. All material witnesses for proving the prosecution case have turned hostile, including PW1, the son of the deceased. After hearing learned counsel for the State and perusing the relevant documents we are of the view that the High Court has come to the correct conclusion