TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bribe of Rs. 1000/-. This led to registration of the first information report under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 19th of September, 2002 and the accused was put on trial. Charges were framed by the Special Judge. In respect of the same incident, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the accused and the Article of Charges was served on him. In the departmental proceeding it was alleged that the accused "being a public servant in discharge of his official duties by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise, abusing his official position, demanded, accepted and obtained Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Sh. Surinder Singh S/o Shri Ram Bhajan r/o H.No. 432-A, Gali No. 2, 80 Sq. Yards, Village Mandoli, Delhi in consideration for giving a report on the water connection". The enquiry officer conducted the departmental inquiry and submitted its report. The inquiry officer observed that "the evidence on record does not substantiate the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe" by the accused and, accordingly, recorded the finding that the charge against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h lower it is very unlikely that the same charge could be proved in a criminal trial where the standard of proof is quite stringent comparatively. Thus, the prosecution of the petitioner in criminal proceedings would only result in his harassment." Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this special leave petition. Leave granted. It is relevant here to state that after quashing of the criminal proceeding by the High Court, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 25th of March, 2009, exonerated the accused of the charges "subject to the condition that if any appeal is filed by the State and an order contrary to the impugned High Court order dated 25.08.2008 is received, the matter will be re-opened". The disciplinary authority had referred to the order of the High Court quashing the criminal prosecution and exonerated the accused on that ground alone. When the matter came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court on 13th of September, 2010, finding conflict between two-Judge Bench decisions of this Court, it referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench and, while doing so, observed as follows: "The facts of the case are that the respondent has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sciplinary authority is not bound by the conclusion of the inquiry officer and, after giving a tentative reason for disagreement and providing the delinquent employee an opportunity of hearing, can differ with the conclusion and record a finding of guilt and punish the delinquent employee. In the present case, before the said stage reached, the accused filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for terminating the criminal proceedings and the High Court fell into error in quashing the said proceedings on the premise that the accused has been exonerated in the departmental proceeding. As the order of the High Court is founded on an erroneous premise, the same cannot be allowed to stand. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the writ petition filed by the accused himself seeking conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the High Court had observed that keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the pendency of the criminal case is not unjustified, and that order has attained finality. Further, the order dated 25th of March, 2009 passed by the disciplinary authority exonerating the accused from the charges, is founded on the ground of quash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subsequently given by the valuers." Thereafter, this Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and reproduced the illustrations laid down for exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution. The categories of cases by way of illustrations, wherein power could be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice read as follows: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s an authority for what it actually decides and not what flows from it. Mere fact that in P.S. Rajya (Supra), this Court quashed the prosecution when the accused was exonerated in the departmental proceeding would not mean that it was quashed on that ground. This would be evident from paragraph 23 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs." (underlining ours) From the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll for consideration before this Court in the case of Supdt. of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary, (1995) 6 SCC 225, where quashing was sought for on two grounds and one of the grounds urged was that the accused having been exonerated of the charge in the departmental proceeding, the prosecution is fit to be quashed. Said submission did not find favour with this Court and it rejected the same in the following words: "6. The second ground of departmental exoneration by the disciplinary authority is also not relevant. What is necessary and material is whether the facts collected during investigation would constitute the offence for which the sanction has been sought for." Decision of this Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Bhutiani, (2009) 10 SCC 674, also throws light on the question involved. In the said case, the accused against whom the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding were going on, was exonerated in the departmental proceeding by the Central Vigilance Commission. The accused challenged his prosecution before the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in the case of P.S. Rajya (supra) and the High Court quashed the prosec....