<p>An employee cannot seek quashing of criminal charges on the ground that he or she has been let off in the departmental proceedings for a particular misdemeanour, the Supreme Court has held.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In a significant ruling, a three-judge bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said that the criminal trial and departmental proceedings are distinct things and two cannot be dependent on each other.<br /><br />“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution 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,” the court said.<br /><br />The bench, also comprising Justices C K Prasad and S J Mukhopadhaya, passed the ruling while setting aside an order of the Delhi High Court.<br /><br />The High Court in August 2008 allowed a plea of Ajay Kumar Tyagi, then junior engineer with Delhi Jal Board, for quashing of criminal proceedings in bribery case on the ground that the same charges could not be proved in departmental proceedings.<br /><br />“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 proceeding or the report of the Inquiry Officer based on those evidence,” Justice Prasad, writing the verdict on behalf of the bench, said.<br /><br />The bench directed Tyagi to appear before a trial court within four weeks for disposal of the case. He was chargesheeted in September 2002 by Delhi government’s anti-corruption branch under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 from complainant Surinder Singh, a police constable, for clearing a file on water connection. <br /></p>
<p>An employee cannot seek quashing of criminal charges on the ground that he or she has been let off in the departmental proceedings for a particular misdemeanour, the Supreme Court has held.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In a significant ruling, a three-judge bench headed by Justice R M Lodha said that the criminal trial and departmental proceedings are distinct things and two cannot be dependent on each other.<br /><br />“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution 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,” the court said.<br /><br />The bench, also comprising Justices C K Prasad and S J Mukhopadhaya, passed the ruling while setting aside an order of the Delhi High Court.<br /><br />The High Court in August 2008 allowed a plea of Ajay Kumar Tyagi, then junior engineer with Delhi Jal Board, for quashing of criminal proceedings in bribery case on the ground that the same charges could not be proved in departmental proceedings.<br /><br />“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 proceeding or the report of the Inquiry Officer based on those evidence,” Justice Prasad, writing the verdict on behalf of the bench, said.<br /><br />The bench directed Tyagi to appear before a trial court within four weeks for disposal of the case. He was chargesheeted in September 2002 by Delhi government’s anti-corruption branch under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs 1,000 from complainant Surinder Singh, a police constable, for clearing a file on water connection. <br /></p>
