Departmental exoneration on merits can bar criminal prosecution; technical or doubt-based relief does not automatically stop trial.

Departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution arising from the same transaction are distinct proceedings and may continue simultaneously. An adjudication finding does not operate as res judicata in the criminal case, so an adverse adjudication does not by itself bar trial. However, where the competent authority has exonerated the accused on merits on identical facts and circumstances, with a clear finding that no contravention is made out, continuation of the criminal complaint is unjustified. Exoneration based only on a technical ground, benefit of doubt, or different facts does not automatically prevent prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether exoneration in departmental adjudication proceedings on the same facts bars continuation of criminal prosecution, and whether such prosecution can continue where the adjudication ended only on technical grounds or on benefit of doubt.

Analysis: The proceedings for adjudication and prosecution are distinct and may proceed simultaneously; criminal complaint need not await the outcome of adjudication. Findings in adjudication do not operate as res judicata, and an adverse adjudication does not prevent criminal trial from proceeding on its own merits. However, where the competent authority or tribunal has exonerated the accused on merits on the very same facts and circumstances, with a categorical finding that the alleged contravention is not made out, continuation of the criminal complaint would be unjust. If the exoneration is only on a technical ground, by way of benefit of doubt, or on a different factual basis, the criminal case is not automatically barred.

Conclusion: Criminal prosecution is not barred merely because adjudication and prosecution arise from the same transaction, but it cannot be sustained where the accused has been exonerated on merits in adjudication on identical facts.

---