Departmental exoneration does not bar criminal prosecution when prima facie conspiracy material supports continuation of proceedings.

Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not by itself bar criminal prosecution on the same facts, because the criminal case must be tested on its own evidence and on the higher standard of proof required there. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to discharge or quashing merely on the basis of departmental exoneration. At the discharge stage, the court need only see whether the materials disclose sufficient ground to presume the offence, without conducting a mini trial. Recovery of foreign currency, non-declaration, passenger statements, and video visuals together made out a prima facie conspiracy case, and Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act supported use of co-conspirators' acts and statements. The discharge application was rightly dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exoneration of the petitioner in departmental proceedings entitled him to discharge or quashing of the criminal prosecution for the same facts; (ii) whether the materials collected by the prosecution disclosed sufficient ground to proceed on the charge of criminal conspiracy.

Issue (i): Whether exoneration of the petitioner in departmental proceedings entitled him to discharge or quashing of the criminal prosecution for the same facts.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto result in exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. The Court preferred the earlier co-equal Supreme Court view holding that criminal prosecution cannot be quashed merely because the employee was exonerated departmentally, since the criminal case must be decided on the evidence adduced therein and the standard of proof is higher than in departmental proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge or quashing merely on the basis of departmental exoneration, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials collected by the prosecution disclosed sufficient ground to proceed on the charge of criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the Court must only see whether there is sufficient ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, without conducting a mini trial. On the materials produced, including recovery of foreign currency from the petitioner's suitcase, non-declaration of the currency, statements of passengers, and video visuals indicating participation in the unlawful arrangement, a prima facie case of conspiracy was made out. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 supported the admissibility and probative use of acts and statements of co-conspirators in proving the conspiracy.

Conclusion: The prosecution materials were sufficient to justify continuation of the proceedings, and the discharge application was rightly dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue and the challenge to the discharge order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not by itself bar criminal prosecution on the same facts; at the discharge stage, the court must only assess whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case without undertaking a mini trial.

---