Exoneration In Departmental Enquiry Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Prosecution On Lokayukta’s Appeal
The Apex Court reiterated that departmental enquiries and criminal prosecutions operate in distinct spheres, governed by different standards of proof and adjudicated by different authorities, and the outcome in one does not automatically determine the fate of the other.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While restoring proceedings in a bribery case, the Supreme Court has held that exoneration of an employee in a departmental enquiry does not, by itself, warrant quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of the same allegations, as disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions are independent in nature.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings against a public servant on the ground that he had been exonerated in a disciplinary enquiry arising out of the same set of facts.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed: “In a criminal prosecution launched what assumes significance is the criminality of the act complained of or detected, which has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Both are independent of each other, not only for reasons of the nature of the proceedings and the standard of proof, but also for reasons of the adjudication being carried on by two different entities, regulated by a different set of rules and more importantly, decided on the basis of the evidence led in the independent proceedings. If evidence is not led properly in one case, it cannot govern the decision in the other case where evidence is led separately and independently”.
Background
The respondent was working as an Executive Engineer (Electrical). He was alleged to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor for clearing five pending bills. Acting on the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap, during which the tainted money was recovered from the respondent, and a criminal prosecution was initiated at the instance of the Karnataka Lokayukta.
Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the department. The enquiry culminated in an exoneration of the respondent, primarily on the ground that the officer who laid the trap was not examined, and that the independent witnesses were not present inside the office room at the time of the alleged transaction.
Relying on the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry, the respondent approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court accepted the plea, holding that when allegations could not be established in a departmental enquiry on the lower standard of proof, the criminal prosecution could not be sustained on the higher standard applicable to criminal trials.
Aggrieved by this decision, the Lokayukta approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court examined the jurisprudence governing the interplay between disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions, including the decisions in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi. The Court clarified that the principle laid down in Radheshyam Kejriwal was confined to cases where adjudication and prosecution were undertaken by the same authority under the same statute, and where exoneration was on merits, striking at the very substratum of the allegation.
Distinguishing such cases, the Court held that departmental enquiries and criminal prosecutions are conducted by different authorities, regulated by different rules, and decided based on evidence independently led in each proceeding. It emphasised that an enquiry report does not attain finality on the question of guilt, which lies exclusively within the domain of the disciplinary authority.
The Court observed that in a disciplinary enquiry, the employer determines whether misconduct is proved and what punishment is proportionate, applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities. In contrast, a criminal court is concerned with establishing criminality beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to properly lead evidence in one proceeding cannot govern the outcome of the other.
On the facts of the case, the Court noted that the respondent’s exoneration in the departmental enquiry was not on merits, but was founded on perceived deficiencies in the evidence led during the enquiry. The Court further found that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the complainant and independent witnesses, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and that it was impermissible to anticipate failure of the prosecution at the trial stage.
The Bench held that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by treating the departmental exoneration as determinative, and reiterated that such an approach would amount to prematurely terminating a prosecution that must be decided on the evidence led before the criminal court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the criminal proceedings against the respondent could not be quashed merely based on his exoneration in the departmental enquiry, and that both proceedings must be allowed to run their independent course.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside, permitting the continuation of the criminal prosecution. The Court clarified that while the disciplinary proceedings stood concluded, any conviction in the criminal case would entail consequences in accordance with the applicable service rules.
Cause Title: The Karnataka Lokayukta, Bagalkote District, Bagalkot v. Chandrashekar & Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 31)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Vikram Hegde, AOR, Abhishek Wadiyar, Ashutosh Yada
Respondents: Advocates Mehmood Umar Faruqui, AOR, Md. Zeeshan Ali, Amit Pandey