SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR v. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/04/2020 VIDE AND FIR NO.04/2020 DATED 29/04/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 7(A) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, PENDING - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:427 WP No. 104828 of 2024 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BAGALKOT IN SPL.C.NO.64/2021 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Here is the revised version of the text with grammatical and legal refinements:

The petitioner, who is facing charges for offences punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has approached this Court seeking relief.

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant was awarded a contract for the repair of transformers at Ilkal. The second respondent submitted five bills to the petitioner, who was working as an Executive Engineer, for processing and forwarding them to the Corporate Office for approval. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded a sum of ₹10,000/- as illegal gratification in relation to the same. On 29.04.2020, the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of ₹10,000/-.

Learned counsel the petitioner submits that a departmental inquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta based on similar allegations. The Inquiry Officer, after a detailed examination, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:427 WP No. 104828 of 2024 submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were not proven, resulting in the petitioner being exonerated on merits. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636, wherein it was held that an acquittal in a departmental inquiry may have a bearing on criminal proceedings if the findings are based on the same set of facts.

In response, learned counsel respondent Lokayukta contends that exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not automatically lead to acquittal or exoneration in a criminal trial, as the standard of proof and the scope of the two proceedings are different. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685, which emphasizes that criminal proceedings are distinct and independent of departmental inquiries.

The submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties have been considered.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 581 has laid the principle which reads thus: "7. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:427 WP No. 104828 of 2024 (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases. "

The Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three learned Judges in the case of the State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) without reference to the decision in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) has held that the High Court misread the judgment in P S Rajya -vs- State of Bihar ((1996) 9 SCC 1)) and exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. It was further noted that the decision - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:427 WP No. 104828 of 2024 of P S Rajya case which was rendered by the Bench consisting of two learned Judge was distinguished in a subsequent decision in the case of State -vs- L. Krishnamohan which was again by a two Judges and accordingly held that the decision in PS Rajya was not an authority for the presumption that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 has held that a decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record. Therefore the decision of State (NCT of Delhi) which has not taken into account and consideration of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik G Kalaghatigi -vs- West Patent Press Co. Ltd. has held that where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Govindanaik Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same Bench strength, it is later of the decision that would prevail. The decision of the Bench consisting of three Judges in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari would prevail over the decision in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) rendered by consisting of three Judges which is a later judgment. Though the decision of the State (NCT of Delhi) was unanimous and whereas in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal it was a majority of 2:1, the total strength of the Bench that they decided - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:427 WP No. 104828 of 2024 the case is deemed to be the Bench strength of that decision despite dissenting opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Fragrances vs- Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 305.

In the present case, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner-accused, and after its conclusion, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the delinquent had not been proven. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned criminal proceedings cannot be continued against the accused, who has been exonerated on identical charges in the departmental inquiry. The underlying principle is that criminal cases require a higher standard of proof.

Learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Puneet Sabarwal VS. CBI, 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 324, wherein at para 40 it was ruled as follows: “40. The decision in Ashoo Surendranath [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636.] is not applicable to the present case because the decision in Ashoo Surendranath [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC

636.] concerned a singular prosecution under the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 where the sanctioning authority had, while denying sanction, recorded on merits that there was no evidence to support the prosecution case. In that context, the court was of the opinion that a criminal proceeding could not be continued. However, in the present case, the charges were framed under the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:427 WP No. 104828 of 2024 Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellants seek to rely upon the findings recorded by the authorities under the Income-tax Act. The scope of adjudication in both the proceedings are markedly different and therefore the findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of the accused persons in the former. The proceedings under the Income-tax Act and its evidentiary value remains a matter of trial and they cannot be considered as conclusive proof for discharge of an accused person.”

The aforementioned cited decision is distinguishable, as the Hon’ble Apex Court held that findings recorded under the Income Tax Act cannot form the basis for exoneration in a criminal case. However, in the present case, the petitioner has been exonerated in a departmental inquiry on the same set of charges, where the scope of adjudication is similar.