Supreme Court: Acquittal in departmental inquiry does not automatically quash criminal case

The Supreme Court has ruled that acquittal in a departmental disciplinary inquiry does not automatically lead to quashing of criminal proceedings in the same matter. The court emphasized that both proceedings are independent and the outcome in one cannot determine the result in the other.

The bench clarified that in disciplinary inquiries, employers determine whether alleged misconduct is proven based on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. In contrast, criminal prosecutions require proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish the criminality of the act.

The court highlighted that these proceedings are conducted by different entities, governed by separate sets of rules, and decided based on evidence presented independently in each case. If evidence is not properly presented in one proceeding, it cannot influence the decision in the other where evidence is led separately.

The ruling came in a case involving Chandrashekar, an executive engineer with the Works and Maintenance Division, HESCOM, Bagalkot. He was accused of demanding and accepting bribes totaling Rs 10,000 from a contractor to clear five bills at Rs 2,000 each.

Chandrashekar faced both disciplinary and criminal proceedings separately. After being exonerated in the departmental inquiry, he approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case against him.

The High Court had allowed his petition, relying on the 2011 Supreme Court decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal. The High Court held that when there is exoneration on merits in disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings on the same facts cannot continue, especially considering the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases.

However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect. The bench noted that the inquiry officer, though a retired District Judge, had applied a higher standard of proof than necessary for disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority had also made the same error.

The court examined the evidence in the departmental inquiry to understand whether there was complete exoneration on merits. The exoneration was based on two factors: the ACB Inspector who conducted the trap was not examined, and two independent witnesses stated they were standing outside the office when the alleged bribe was handed over.

The Supreme Court found this was not a case of total exoneration on merits that would warrant quashing of criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that it was not interfering with the departmental inquiry order, but merely assessing whether the criminal case should continue independently.

The bench allowed the appeal filed by Karnataka Lokayuktha and permitted the criminal proceedings to continue. However, it clarified that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be reopened based on its findings. If there is a conviction in the criminal case, it would bring consequences as mandated by service rules, which the disciplinary authority had specifically reserved in its order.

The court reiterated its consistent position that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions, even on identical allegations, are parallel proceedings. The conclusion in one is not binding on the other, despite frequent contentions to the contrary.

The judgment reinforces the principle that employers and criminal courts operate in separate spheres with different standards of proof, and acquittal in one forum does not predetermine the outcome in another.

Case details: The Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot vs Chandrashekar & Anr, decided by a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran on January 6, 2025