2022 (1) TMI 306 - HC - Indian Laws

Exoneration in Departmental Proceedings Doesn't Stop Criminal Cases

Rajendra Kumar Gautam, Ishak Khan Versus State of MP

The court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically halt criminal prosecution. The legal presumption under the P.C. Act and ... Disciplinary proceedings against the officer of CGST / Central excise department - trap/transaction - enquiry officer exonerated both of them against petitioners, employees of department of CGST and Central Excise - HELD THAT:- A careful reading of para 39 of RADHESHYAM KEJRIWAL VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [2011 (2) TMI 154 - SUPREME COURT], makes it clear that even as per the majority view, the Court opined that the question of contravention of provision of the Act is a relevant factor which needs to be considered while examining the claim of delinquent employee/accused that upon his exoneration in the departmental inquiry, criminal proceedings deserves to be jettisoned. It is important to note that the provisions of the Act for the instant case means provisions of P.C. Act. Indisputably, P.C. Act is a special enactment. A conjoint reading of Section 7 and Explanation d appended to it shows that the provision deals with public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration and the eventualities when such an act of public servant can be brought to the purview of Section 7 of P.C. Act - Section 20 of P.C. Act creates legal presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. Upon fulfilling certain requirements by the prosecution, a legal presumption is created against the government servant - The heading of section itself suggests that a presumption is created by law makers against public servants accepting gratification other than legal remuneration. Upon considering the provisions of P.C. Act, it cannot be held that chances of conviction of petitioners in the criminal trial involving the same facts are totally bleak. We are unable to hold that the nature of findings mentioned in the order of disciplinary authority forms any legal impediment for proceeding with the criminal case. It cannot be held that exoneration of petitioners in the departmental inquiry draws such an iron curtain on the case of prosecution because of which prosecution cannot be permitted to proceed with the criminal case. Hence, no interference is warranted on the FIRs and on the criminal cases by this Court. It is deemed proper to clarify that discussion made was aimed to decide the question whether finding in the departmental inquiry can foreclose the right of the prosecution to proceed with the FIRs and criminal cases against the petitioners - petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to FIRs and charge sheets based on exoneration in departmental proceedings.2. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on the continuation of criminal prosecution post-departmental exoneration.3. Legal presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act).4. Differentiation between departmental and criminal proceedings.5. Precedential value of conflicting Supreme Court judgments.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to FIRs and charge sheets based on exoneration in departmental proceedings:The petitioners, employees of the CGST and Central Excise department, challenged the FIRs and charge sheets against them. They argued that since they were exonerated in departmental proceedings arising from the same incident, the criminal case should be dismissed. The disciplinary authority had approved the enquiry officer's findings, exonerating the petitioners on merits.2. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on the continuation of criminal prosecution post-departmental exoneration:The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ashoo Sundarnath Tiwari Vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police, which held that if an employee is exonerated in departmental proceedings on the same factual foundation, the criminal prosecution should not continue. They also cited P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar and Radheshyam Kejrival Vs. State of West Bengal, which support the principle that criminal cases require a higher standard of proof than departmental inquiries.3. Legal presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act):The respondent argued that the P.C. Act is a special statute with a presumption of guilt against the accused. Section 20 of the P.C. Act creates a legal presumption where a public servant accepts any undue advantage. The judgment in Ajay Kumar Tyagi, a larger bench decision, clarified that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal prosecution. The presumption under the P.C. Act and the evidence presented in criminal cases, including witness testimonies, are crucial.4. Differentiation between departmental and criminal proceedings:The court emphasized that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are distinct and conducted by different entities. Departmental proceedings are based on conduct rules and limited evidence, while criminal trials require a higher standard of proof and consider all relevant evidence, including witness testimonies and statutory presumptions under the P.C. Act. The court noted that the findings of the inquiry report and disciplinary authority in departmental proceedings are based on limited evidence, whereas the criminal case involves multiple witnesses and broader evidence.5. Precedential value of conflicting Supreme Court judgments:The court acknowledged the conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue. While Ashoo Sundarnath Tiwari and Radheshyam Kejrival supported the petitioners' argument, the larger bench decision in Ajay Kumar Tyagi clarified that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically quash criminal prosecution. The court observed that the judgment in P.S. Rajya did not have precedential value in light of Ajay Kumar Tyagi. The court also noted that the judgment in Radheshyam Kejrival involved a dissenting opinion, making it a decision of two judges rather than a full bench.Conclusion:The court concluded that the exoneration of the petitioners in departmental proceedings does not preclude the continuation of criminal prosecution. The legal presumption under the P.C. Act and the broader evidence in criminal trials justify proceeding with the criminal cases. The court dismissed the petitions, allowing the criminal cases to proceed on their merits. The discussion and findings in the judgment were aimed at deciding the question of whether departmental exoneration forecloses criminal prosecution, without impacting the merits of the criminal cases.