Exoneration in departmental proceedings on merits precludes continuation of criminal prosecution based on identical charges, emphasizing the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , has approached this Court.

2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner demanded a gratification amount of ₹4,000 to enter the names of the complainant and his mother in the Record of Rights in relation to land bearing RS No. 196/A+B+3 of Sunaga Gram, following the death of the complainant’s father. A trap was conducted, during which the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting the gratification amount of ₹4,000 from the complainant in the presence of a shadow witness. On the basis of a similar set of allegations, a departmental inquiry was conducted, wherein the inquiry officer, after a full-fledged inquiry, exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The order exonerating the petitioner has attained finality.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta has filed a statement of objections, which is taken on record. He contends that although the shadow witness supported the prosecution’s case in the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was still exonerated. Furthermore, the investigating officer, who is a material witness, was not examined during the departmental inquiry. Therefore, in such circumstances, the benefit of the petitioner’s exoneration in the departmental proceedings cannot be extended to quash the criminal proceedings. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanju Rajan Nayar v. Jayaraj & Another.

4. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties, the following observations are made:

5. It is undisputed that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and after adjudicating the matter at length, the inquiry committee exonerated the petitioner on the same set of charges, on merits. However, the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, was not examined in the departmental inquiry.

6. To establish demand and acceptance, the material witnesses are the complainant and the shadow witness, while the evidence of the investigating officer is limited to proving the recovery of tainted money from the accused, the subsequent drawing up of the trap mahazar, and the forwarding of the tainted money to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The burden to prove the demand and acceptance of the tainted money rests upon the complainant and the shadow witness. In the present case, the complainant has not supported the prosecution’s case. Although the shadow witness partly supported the prosecution’s case during the departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer, after appreciating the evidence of both the complainant and the shadow witness, concluded that the allegations against the petitioner were baseless.

7. Furthermore, given that no official work was pending as of the date of the trap, the order exonerating the petitioner in the departmental inquiry has attained finality. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukta that the exoneration in the departmental inquiry cannot be extended to quash the criminal proceedings is untenable.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 has laid principle which reads thus:

“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :-

(i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract t