TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for R-2 & 3 ORDER (ORAL) 1. These three petitions have been filed by the same public servant in relation to different orders of the Special Judge passed in the context of the criminal case (CC 01/15) arising out of the First Information Report (RC No.55A/89/CBI/ACB/New Delhi) involving offences punishable under Sections 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988, the prayer being for this court to intervene and quash the said proceedings and the said impugned orders passed therein, in exercise of the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The FIR of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was registered on 20.11.1989. It was ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the trap, it having been recovered statedly at his instance from his office table drawer. The Special Judge, however, was unable to proceed further since the CBI had not taken any steps for sanction for prosecution to be obtained in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. By the aforesaid order dated 07.08.2015 which is assailed in the first captioned petition, the Special Judge directed the CBI to place the evidence gathered during investigation before the sanctioning authority to consider as to whether sanction for prosecution was to be granted. 4. The sanctioning authority i.e. the Director General, Central Public Works Department (CPWD), by his order dated 02.02.2016, accorded sanction for prosecution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on these petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one plea viz. that in the face of exoneration in the disciplinary action, the proceedings in the criminal case arising out of FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the court of the Special Judge cannot survive. It is the argument of the learned counsel that the facts on the basis of which disciplinary action was initiated, it having ended in exoneration, are same as the facts on the basis of which the present proceedings have been initiated in the court of the Special Judge. He also places reliance on Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2016) 12 SCC 315 whereby the view taken by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Radhesh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further they are not in the same hierarchy. (emphasis supplied) 8. In the considered opinion of this court, the view taken by the Special Judge at this stage of the process is correct. As was pointed out by the learned counsel representing CBI, as is also taken note of by the sanctioning authority in the order granting sanction, that the exoneration in the departmental proceedings vide order dated 22.11.1995 by the Director General, CPWD was essentially based on the then decision of the CBI (investigating agency) not to file chargesheet against the peti....