Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not entitle the accused to discharge from the criminal case if the charges are not identical. Sanction for prosecution is valid if the prosecution has the opportunity to suffice the sanction order by adducing evidence and putting materials at the time of trial.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 20-9-1997 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 1 of 1989 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for discharge from the criminal case has been rejected.

2. On the basis of the First Information Report that the petitioner has got disproportionate assets to the known source of income, the abovementioned case was lodged and the C.W.I, made the investigation and then submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner was also proceeded in a departmental proceeding by his employer M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. On various items, it could be found that the petitioner had disproportionate assets than the known sources of income and on all those items investigation was done and then charge-sheet was submitted.

3. The petitioner came up before this Court on earlier occasion also in Cr. Misc. No. 3102 of 1995 (R) for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings but Hon ble Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya allowed the petitioner to withdraw the same with an observation that if the submissions are made before the Court below the same should be considered by him and pass reasoned order. The petitioner then filed a petition for discharge but the same was not being heard and then petitioner again came up before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4498 of 1997 (R) and this Court by an order dated 5.8.1997 directed the Court below to dispose of the petition filed for and on behalf of the petitioner for discharge and to pass necessary order in accordance with law. Accordingly, as per direction of this Court, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad heard the petition and then passed impugned order rejecting the application, hence this petition.

4. At the very outset, objection was raised that the petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as by the impugned order petition for discharge has been rejected and order has been passed for framing of charge which is definitely a revisable one.

5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner concede to that position but submitted that the other points were also involved in the case which may make the petitioner immuned from the criminal charge and the prosecution thereof and hence this petition may be considered under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. also. On merit, submission of Mr. Banerjee is that the petitioners is entitled for discharge as on the same very allegation the petitioner was proceeded in a departmental proceedings and the Presiding Officer in the departmental proceeding was an officer of the C.S.I. itself and when in that departmental proceeding vide order dated 26.8.1996 the petitioner has been exonerated then there remains no scope for proceeding with the criminal case on the same very charges. In support of his contention, Mr. Banerjee has referred to a decision as reported in 1996 (2) East Cr. Cases 337 (S.C.) P.S. Rajya V/s. State of Bihar. According to Mr. Banerjee, the present case is fully covered by the said judgment of the Apex Court. In that case also, there was charge of corruption against the accused and he was proceeded on the same charges in a departmental proceeding and it was held that when standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings then when the departmental proceeding fails then there is futile attempt to proceed or continue with the prosecution on identical charges.

6. But, the papers supplied in the present case do not show that there were identical charges in the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceedings charge was against the petitioner that he had failed to report in Form No. IV to the competent authority of his department regarding the transaction concerning immovable property owned in the name of his children for a value of more