Departmental exoneration does not bar criminal prosecution where forgery and cheating allegations rest on separate standards of proof.

Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution for forgery and cheating arising from the same facts, because the two forums apply different standards of proof. The Court also noted that the petitioner's LPC lacked a memo number and that the alleged issuer was neither examined nor shown to have admitted issuance in the petitioner's favour. On that evidentiary basis, the criminal proceeding was not liable to be quashed merely on the ground of disciplinary exoneration, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR alleging forgery and cheating could be quashed merely because the petitioner had been exonerated in departmental proceedings.

Analysis: The departmental inquiry and the criminal case rest on different standards of proof. Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings does not by itself establish innocence in a criminal prosecution. The Court also noted that the LPC produced by the petitioner did not bear a memo number, and the alleged issuer had not been examined or admitted issuance of the certificate in the petitioner's favour.

Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was not liable to be quashed on the basis of departmental exoneration, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not ipso facto bar or nullify criminal prosecution based on the same allegations, because the two proceedings operate on different standards of proof and must be judged on the evidence led in each forum.

---