TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madras, so as to prevent the abuse of process of law as well as to secure the ends of justice for the purpose of quashing the above proceedings in the light of the CVC opinion and the concurring report of the Disciplinary Authority. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in addition to the criminal prosecution, on identical charges, the Department also initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner. Finding that no charges were made out against him, the Enquiry Officer concluded that none of the charges were proved against him and he accordingly made a recommendation to the disciplinary authority to close the case against the petitioner. Though the enqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urai Bench of our High Court, this Court pronounced the Order in the above cases on 22.12.2017. The petitioner's counsel was under the impression that final orders would be pronounced in the above cases only after the learned Judge complete the sitting at Madurai Bench and came back to the Principal Bench in January,2018. Therefore, the petitioner was legally advised to wait till January,2018 for submitting on record the concurring report of the Disciplinary Authority and the CVC's opinion completely exonerating the petitioner from the charges. As his counsel was extremely busy with his cases in the Principal Bench, he could not notice the listing of the above cases where orders were pronounced in Madurai Bench, on 22.12.2017. After....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases contended that the proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority of the concerned department is entirely on different footing from the present criminal proceedings. The conclusion of the said departmental proceedings will not have any bearing upon the present criminal proceedings before this Court. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases also contended that the entire contentions of the petitioner was considered in full and then only the Crl.O.P.Nos.2947 and 2948 of 2017 was dismissed by this Court. If, for any reason, the petitioner was not able to produce any document or other materials, the same cannot be a ground for seeking recall of the order of dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perusal, it is clear that the petitioner has come forward with these petitions to recall the orders passed in Crl.O.P.Nos.2947 and 2948 of 2017 on the basis of the finding given by the departmental proceeding officer. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on ruling reported in (1) RAJYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR in 1996(9) SCC 1 (2) CBI Vs. BHUITANI in 2009 (1) SCC 674, (3)AJAYKUMAR TYAGI Vs. GOVT (NCT OF INDIA) (4) AIR CUSTOMS OFFICE IGI, NEWDELHI Vs. PARMOD KUMAR DHAMIJA IN 2016 (4) SCC 153 (5) HMT WATCH CASE IN 2015 (11) SCC 776 and (6) KAMALESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER in 2014 (1) CTC 329. Relying upon the above said rulings, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that nothing survives....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ya (Supra). In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner has failed to take any steps to produce the same before this Court till the order was passed by the Court in the Crl.O.P.Nos.2947 and 2948 of 2017 on 22.12.2017. As such, the petitioner is not justified to contend that to enable him to produce the material relating to departmental proceedings, the order passed by this Court is to be recalled. Further, in view of the Apex Court ruling relied upon by the prosecution, it is apparent that exoneration in departmental proceedings will not result automatically in quashing of criminal prosecution. Thus, on that ground also the plea of the petitioner is unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the present petition, the only contention on the side of the petitioner is to recall the orders passed in Crl. O....