Exoneration In Disciplinary Proceedings Doesn't Bar Criminal Prosecution On Same Charge In All Situations : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that exoneration of a public servant in departmental disciplinary proceedings does not automatically warrant quashing of a criminal prosecution, particularly in corruption cases arising from trap proceedings, reiterating that the two processes operate independently and on different standards of proof.A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta and set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which had quashed criminal proceedings against an Executive Engineer accused of demanding and accepting a bribe.Background The case arose from allegations that an Executive Engineer (Electrical) in HESCOM, Bagalkot, demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000 from a contractor for clearing five pending bills. Acting on a complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap, recovered tainted currency notes from the officer's pocket and recorded positive results in the phenolphthalein test.While both departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution were initiated, the disciplinary enquiry culminated in the officer's exoneration. Relying on this, the officer approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal case. The High Court accepted the plea, holding that since the charge could not be proved even on the lower standard of preponderance of probabilities, criminal prosecution on the higher standard of proof could not continue.Supreme Court's ReasoningReversing the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere fact of exoneration in a disciplinary enquiry does not, by itself, invalidate criminal proceedings. The Court explained that disciplinary enquiries are meant to assess misconduct for service purposes on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, whereas criminal trials determine penal liability on proof beyond reasonable doubt.The Bench distinguished the three-judge decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (2011) 3 SCC 581, relied on by the High Court, holding that it was a case where the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act destroyed the substratum of the criminal prosecution under FERA. noting that it applied to adjudication and prosecution by the same authority under the same statute. In contrast, in the present case, the exoneration was on the ground of procedural faults."The ratio decidendi of that case (Radheshyam Kejriwal) cannot be extended to every situation where a statute provides for a civil liability and a criminal liability, in which event Courts would be presuming what logically follows from the finding, without any application on the facts."The judgment authored by Justice Chandran relied on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685, holding that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto lead to quashing of criminal prosecution, especially in bribery trap cases conducted by an independent investigating agency.Findings On Enquiry ReportThe Bench also examined the enquiry report and found that the exoneration was not on merits but largely due to procedural lapses, including the non-examination of the trap-laying officer. It observed that such deficiencies in a departmental enquiry could not pre-empt a criminal trial, where courts have wider powers to secure evidence and witnesses.Notably, the Court recorded that the complainant and two independent witnesses had consistently supported the prosecution version regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money, along with proof of taint.Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court permitted the criminal prosecution to continue, while clarifying that the concluded disciplinary proceedings could not be reopened. However, it noted that any conviction in the criminal case would entail service consequences as per applicable rules, which had already been reserved by the disciplinary authority.Case : The Karnataka Lokayukta Bagalkote District v Chandrashekar and anrCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 15Click here to read the judgmentRelated - PC Act | Witnesses Turning Hostile In Departmental Proceedings No Ground To Seek Discharge In Criminal Trial : Supreme Court

Exoneration In Disciplinary Proceedings Doesn't Bar Criminal Prosecution On Same Charge In All Situations : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags