Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SATENDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Varun Deswal, Ms. Punya Rekha
Angara, Mr. Danish Khan, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara N, Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjun Singh Mandela and Mr. Danish Khan, Advs. with petitioner in-person.
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State with SI Vijay Tiwari, PS Lajpat
Nagar, Delhi.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 354/2017 registered at PS Lajpat Nagar under Section 304 IPC. Subsequently, in the chargesheet further offences under Sections 177/218/467/468/471 IPC; Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2013[1] as well as Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act[2], were added.
2. The case set out by the prosecution is that on 06.08.2017 the aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of one Rakesh Kumar S/o Mashikaran, R/o Jhuggi No.5/30, Khichdi Pur, East Delhi, Delhi, wherein he alleged that he was engaged in sewer cleaning work as a labourer with Contractor M/s Dinesh Chandra (hereinafter ‘Contractor Dinesh’) in Delhi Jal Board. On 06.08.2017 Contractor Dinesh had engaged them i.e. him, Jogender S/o Dharmpal, Annu and one other labourer aged 28 years for cleaning 25 sewers from Jal Sadan to Ring Road. Considering the death of labourers due to inhalation of poisonous gas during sewer cleaning on earlier occasions, the victims had, on multiple occasions asked Contractor Dinesh to provide safety apparatus like mask etc., but the same was never provided to them stating that the same were costly.
7. Prohibition of persons from engagement or employment for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks: No person, local authority or any agency shall, from such date as the State Government may notify, which shall not be later than one year from the date of commencement of this Act, engage or employ, either directly or indirectly, any person for hazardous cleaning of a sewer or a septic tank.
9. Penalty for contravention of section 7: Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 7 shall for the first contravention be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both, and for any subsequent contravention with imprisonment which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— xxx xxx xxx (j) makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do manual scavenging or employs or permits the employment of such member for such purpose; (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a
3. It is alleged that the four labourers started cleaning sewers after opening lids on Jal Vihar Road in front of Delhi Jal Board Office. They cleaned 3-4 sewers and thereafter, at around 12.00 noon, victims started cleaning the sewer situated opposite Sant Kabir Ram Mandir.
4. In the meanwhile, the complainant had gone to Amar Colony to bring a hammer. After about 10 minutes, Manoj, i.e., the driver of Government Vehicle of Jal Board who was appointed to work with them on that day telephonically informed him that his three colleagues, having been affected by the gas inside the sewers, had fallen down in the sewer while cleaning and drowned.
5. However, when he ran back to the spot and started climbing down the sewer to remove his friends, he too started feeling drowsy, and at that moment the police officials reached on spot and pulled him out. Subsequently, a Fire Brigade arrived at the scene and pulled them out one by one. The police vehicle then removed the victims to the hospital. The concerned doctor at AIIMS declared the victims as brought dead. The incident happened as Contractor Dinesh did not provide them safety apparatus such as Mask etc. These allegations led to the registration of aforesaid FIR No.354/2017.
6. Subsequently, after investigation, the prosecution filed the first chargesheet against the present petitioner. Thereafter, final report dated 20.10.2017 was filed by the police against the present petitioner. Then, supplementary chargesheet dated 27.08.2018 was filed by the police in Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; which no person was arraigned as an accused, however, Contractor Dinesh was kept in column no.12.
7. Later, yet another supplementary chargesheet dated 16.08.2019 was field by the police in which Assistant Engineer namely, Priti Pant and Executive Engineer namely, Shiv Hari were arraigned as accused.
8. Later on, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the present petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer (Civil), Delhi Jal Board at the relevant time. Likewise, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the Assistant Engineer (Priti Pant), as well as, the Executive Engineer (Shiv Hari).
9. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide memorandum dated 22.03.2018 and the petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the following two article of charges: “Article No.-1 Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior Engineer under Executive Engineer (South)-II during the year 2017, committed misconduct in as much as due to gross negligence on his part, manual cleaning of sewer manholes at DJB’s 450 mm dia sewer line opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was taken up by the Contractor M/s. Dinesh Chandra on 6.08.2017 (Sunday) without site supervision and without providing the mandatory safety equipment to the workers so deployed. The above negligence on part of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava resulted in loss of three precious human lives as three labourers of the contractor M/s Dinesh Chandra died of asphyxiation due to the presence of poisonous gases inside the manhole while cleaning the manhole manually. This act of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava amounts to gross misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board. Article No.-2 That Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior 2017, committed misconduct in as much as he, in connivance with his EE and AE, manipulated and changed the original logsheet of the hired jetting cum suction machine bearing No: DL 1GC 5533 after the incident leading to loss of three precious human lives in the DJB sewer manhole opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, on 06.08.2017 (Sunday) during manual cleaning of the manhole. The above act of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava amounts to gross misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby, contravened Rule 3(1)(i),(ii) &
(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board.”
10. The submission of Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is that departmental proceedings eventually culminated into an inquiry report dated 17.08.2020, whereby the petitioner was exonerated from both the charges and findings were recorded to the effect that both charges have not been proved against the petitioner.
11. He submits that the inquiry report was also accepted by the disciplinary authority and final order of exoneration of the petitioner came to be passed on 10.09.2020.
12. Mr. Hariharan also invites attention of the Court to chargesheet dated 20.10.2017 filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 304/177/218/467/468/471 of IPC, Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2023, & Section 3(1)(j) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act and the allegations contained therein. Reference has been made to the following paragraphs of the chargesheet insofar as offence under Section 304 IPC and the offence of forgery of logbook is concerned: “It revealed that the present accused, Satender Kumar Srivastava while posted as a J.E. in the Kasturba Nagar constituency directed supervisor of the jetting machine, the driver of the jetting machine and one of his subordinate employee to report for duty on 06.08.2017 i.e. Sunday. It also revealed that he had directed the Rakesh, the present complainant to carryout the cleaning of manhole of mainline downstream from Amar Colony to Lajpat Nagar. It also revealed that it was in the knowledge of accused Satender Kumar Srivastava, JE that the casual labourers belong to a SC caste and he allowed them to carry out manual scavenging in his area being a public servant. Later, the section of law were accordingly added and the accused above was arrested on 21.08.2016, he produced a stock register being maintained at his office which shows that there were enough safety equipments available with him on 05.08.2017 and he knowingly and deliberately did not issue these life saving safety equipments to the casual workers on 06.08.2017. It also revealed that no work permit was issued by him in favour of Rakesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, a approved contractor.. As per the standing instructions, being a J.E., he was duty bound to remain present at the place of cleaning of sewage line manhole on 06.08.2017. His mobile phone location shows that he was not even present at the place of work but also he was out of Delhi in the cell ID of U.P. West. The frequency of CDRS of mobile phone of accused Satender Kumar Srivastava with Kiran Pal, Supervisor dated 07.08.2017 further reveales that he wanted to misguide police by producing a forged Log Book. It also revealed that there is no evidence except the allegation against alleged contractor Dinesh Kumar. He was not found in contact with Rakesh before the incident and after the incident in any manner. As far as, the role of Area Engineer Ashok Hari and Executive Engineer, Preeti Pant is concerned, they were not aware of the work as no work permit was issued by the J.E regarding this incident. He (J.E) got prepared a forged Log Book of Jetting machine which is already on file. The cleaning work of sewage line was carried out by the accused S.K. Shrivastava without bringing it to the knowledge and notice of his immediate seniors and it reflects that he had got cleaned these manhole on his on will. There is no evidence against the contractor Dinesh Kumar./A.E., Shiv Hari and Ex. Engineer, Priti Pant were not informed by the JE prior to the said cleaning work of sewage line. The Visceras and other exhibits have been deposited with the FSL Rohini vide No. 2017/CHE-6754. dated 08.09.2017, the result is awaited. The question documents, admitted documents and specimen documents have also been forwarded to, the director FSL Rohini New Delhi. The result of the FSL would be deposited in the court through supplementary chargesheet u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.. The investigation conducted so far reveals that there are sufficient grounds to charge sheet the accused Satender Kumar Srivastava S/o Sh. Girish Lal Srivastava R/o Flat No. C-80/003, Eastern Heights Society Nyay Khand 03, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh u/s Section U/S: 304/177/218/467/468/471 IPC, 7/9 Manual Scavanging Act. 2013, 3(1) J, SC/ST Act. The accused is in Judicial Custody.
13. Additionally, Mr. Hariharan invites attention of the Court to the following portion of the chargesheet: “On 08.08.2017, Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, a J.E. posted with Delhi Jal Board South Zone produced a Log Book of Jetting Machine which was taken on record. Sh. Kiran Pal, Supervisor of above firm also produced two Log Books of Jetting Machine No. DL-1GC-5533 for the month of July, 2017 and August 2017. It revealed that the J.E., Satender Kumar Srivastava got prepared a forged Log Book after the incident and the forged Log Book of jetting machine was signed on the first page of the book. The first page of genuine Log Book of above jetting machine for July 2017 and August 2017 does not contain the signature of Delhi Jal Board Officials whereas the pages inside shows the initials of drivers, Delhi Jal Board officials who carried out the cleaning work on respective dates with the help of jetting machine. It also revealed that the J.E., Satender Kumar Srivastava was using mobile phone No. 9650094530 and he had called up supervisor, Kiran Pal on his mobile no. 9873561871 on 05.08.2017 to direct the driver, Manoj Kumar to make available the jetting machine for the cleaning work that was to be carried out on 06.08.2017. it also stated by one Amarjeet, an employee of Delhi Jal Board, who was working under Satender Kumar Srivastava that he was directed by the J.E. on 05.08.2017 in the evening to come on 06.08.2017 in the morning for the cleaning of Sewerage line on Sunday. The statement of Kiran Pal, Manoj Kumar, Amarjeet and Rakesh, the complainant have been correctly supported by the call detail reports of mobile phones of respective witnesses.”
14. Mr. Hariharan further submits that since the petitioner has already been exonerated of all charges in departmental proceedings, therefore, criminal proceedings which are also premised on identical allegations cannot be sustained. Elaborating further, he submits that standard of proof in department proceedings is preponderance of probability whereas in case of criminal proceedings the threshold of proof is higher, being beyond reasonable doubt.
15. He further submits that the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer who were similarly charge-sheeted in the criminal case were also exonerated in departmental proceedings. Thereafter, the said Assistant Engineer, as well as, the Executive Engineer filed similar petitions being CRL.M.C. 934/2021 and CRL.M.C. 935/2021 seeking quashing of FIR on the ground that post exoneration in departmental proceedings, the FIR is liable to be quashed qua them.
16. He submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide common judgment dated 24.01.2023 passed in aforesaid two petitions quashed the FIR qua the petitioners therein. He, therefore, urges that the present petition be allowed and the FIR qua the present petitioner as well, be quashed.
17. I have heard Mr. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, as well as, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and have perused the record.
18. The fundamental question which arises in the present petition for consideration of this Court is whether proceedings arising out of FIR NO. 354/2017 which is premised on identical allegations on which departmental proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner, are liable to be quashed once the petitioner has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings.
19. To appreciate the case set out in the present petition, it would be imperative to ascertain as to whether allegations in criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 354/2017 and disciplinary proceedings are identical. For the said purpose, apposite would it be to examine the allegations in final report dated 20.10.2017 filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC, as well as, Statement of Articles served vide Memorandum dated 22.03.2018, in juxtaposition, which are as under: STATEMENT OF ARTICLES SERVED VIDE MEMORANDUM DATED 22.03.2018 ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED IN THE CHARGESHEET DATED 20.10.2017 ARTICLE – I Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior Engineer under Executive Engineer (South)-II during the year 2017, committed misconduct in as much as due to gross negligence on his part, manual cleaning of sewer manholes at DJB’s 450 mm dia sewer line opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was taken up by the contractor M/s Dinesh Chandra on 06.08.2017 (Sunday) without site supervision and without providing the mandatory safety equipment to the workers so deployed. The above negligence on part of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava resulted in loss of three precious human lives as three labourers of the contractor M/s Dinesh Chandra died of asphyxiation due to the presence of poisonous gases inside the manhole while cleaning the manhole manually. This act of Sh. Satender Kumar EXCERPTS FROM FIRST CHARGESHEET QUA THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 304 IPC ETC. It revealed that present accused, Satender Kumar Srivastava while posted as a J.E. in the Kasturba Nagar constituency directed supervisor of the jetting machine, the driver of the jetting machine and one of his subordinate employee to report for duty on 06.8.2017 i.e. Sunday. It also revealed that he had directed the Rakesh, the present complainant to carry out the cleaning of manhole of mainline downstream from Amar Colony to Lajpat Nagar. It also revealed that it was in the knowledge of accused Satender Kumar Srivastava, JE that the casual labourers belong to a SC caste and he allowed them to carry out manual scavenging in his area being a public servant. Later, the section of law were accordingly added and the accused above was arrested on 21.08.2016, he produced a stock register being maintained at his office which shows that there were enough safety equipments Srivastava amounts to gross misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board.
ARTICLE NO.-2 That Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior Engineer under Executive Engineer (South_-II during the year 2017, committed misconduct in as much as he, in connivance with his EE and AE, manipulated and changed the original log-sheet of the hired jetting cum suction machine bearing No. DL 1 GC 5533 after the incident leading to loss of three precious human lives in the DJB sewer manhole opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, on 06.08.2017 (Sunday) during manual cleaning of the manhole. available to the casual workers on 06.08.2017. It also revealed that no work permit was issued by him in favour of Rakesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, an approved contractor. As per the standing instructions, being a J.E., he was duty bound to remain present at the place of cleaning of sewage line manhole on 06.08.2017. His mobile phone location shows that he was not even present at the place of work but also he was out of Delhi in the cell ID of U.P. West.
EXCERPTS FROM FIRST CHARGESHEET QUA THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 177/218/467/468/471 IPC ETC.
FOR FORGERY OF LOG BOOKS On 08.8.2017, Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, a J.E. posted with Delhi Jal Board South Zone produced a Log Book of Jetting Machine which was taken on record. Sh. Kiran Pal, Supervisor of above firm also produced two Log Books of Jetting Machine No. DL-1GC-5533 for the month of July, 2017 and August
2017. It revealed that the J.E., Satender Kumar Srivastava got prepared a forged Log book after the incident and the forged Log book of jetting machine was signed on the first page of the book. The first page of genuine Log Book of above jetting The above act of Sh. Satendra Kumar Srivastava amounts to gross misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby, contravened Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board. machine for July 2017 and August 2017 does not contain the signature of Delhi Jal Board Officials whereas the pages inside shows the initials of drivers, Delhi Jal Board officials who carried out the cleaning work on respective dates with the help of jetting machine.
20. A comparative reading of Article 1 of Memorandum dated 22.03.2018 and the excerpts from chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC in respect of the allegations under section 304 IPC shows the charge alleged in Article-1 of the Memorandum dated 22.03.2018 is that the manual cleaning of sewer manholes was undertaken by the Contractor Dinesh on 06.08.2017 without site supervision and without providing mandatory safety equipment to the workers so deployed which was an act of negligence on part of the petitioner resulting in loss of three precious human lives as three labourers of Contractor Dinesh died of asphyxiation due to presence of poisonous gases inside the manhole during manual cleaning process. This allegation in essence is identical to the allegation made in police report under section 173 CrPC in respect of the offence invoked under section 304 IPC.
21. Likewise, the allegation in Article-2 of the Memorandum dated 22.03.2018 is that the petitioner in connivance with his EE and AE, manipulated and changed the original log-sheet of the hired jetting cum suction machine bearing No. DL 1 GC 5533 after the incident leading to loss of three precious human lives, which is identical to the allegations, basis which offences u/s 177/218/467/468/471/120B IPC were sought to be invoked.
22. At this juncture, it is significant to refer to some of the relevant findings given by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 17.08.2020 with regard to both articles of charge levelled against the present petitioner. The relevant findings insofar as Article-1 is concerned are as under: “1.27 Also, there is nothing on record to prove that there was any work order for taking up sewer cleaning work in Kasturba Nagar Constituency issued by EE (South) II under Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO. There has to be an official work order for the sewer cleaning work awarded to M/s Dinesh Chander, Contractor. In the absence of such a Work Order and contract agreement, it could not be ascertained and firmly said that any of the Cos could call M/s Dinesh Chander, Contractor to engage labourers to do the sewer cleaning work opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir on any sewer line. In this case a sewer line sizing 450 mm dia has been suggested by the prosecution.
1.34 In para-2 of D-7/4-5 it has further been stated that neither DJB nor Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO issued any written direction for sending any jetting machine for doing any work at Jal Sadan, Lajpat Nagar.
1.35 Para-4 of D-7/5 categorically states that no contract of the contractor Dinesh Chander was in operation with DJB on the day of the incident-i.e.-6-8-2017.
1.36 Para 4 on D-7/5-6 it has been stated that the deceased persons were not deputed by DJB to do any work of cleaning of any sewer.
1.41 From the above foregoing paras it is concluded that where the incident took place was not in the jurisdiction of Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO.
1.42 The machine said to be engaged for sewer cleaning was out of order on the date of incident stated by Shri Kiran Pal, Supervisor S/o Shri Raje Ram as per the statement by Shri Bindra Prasad, AE PW-4 during the preliminary enquiry by Shri R.S. Negi, CE(S).
1.43 No work order to any agency for cleaning of the sewer line opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Lajpat Nagar was given. There are no details of work order/contract agreement from PD-1 to PD-24 to engage labourers including by Shri Dinesh Chander, Contractor, to take up the sewer cleaning opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Lajpat Nagar. Conclusion With the above explained facts, circumstances and the available records, I find that the charges framed against Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE under Article-I is not proved.” (emphasis supplied)
23. Similarly, the relevant findings as well as conclusion of the inquiry officer insofar Article 2 is concerned, reads thus: “That Sh. Satendra Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior 2017, committed misconduct in as much as he, in connivance with his EE and AE, manipulated and changed the original log-sheet of the hired jetting-cum-suction machine bearing no: DL-1GC-5533 after the incident leading to loss of three precious human lives in the DJBs opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, on 06.08.2017 (Sunday) during manual cleaning of the manhole. 2.[7] It is observed that the log sheet usually in the custody of the driver (Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o Shri Narayan) of the vehicle and entry/entries, if any, should be made by the driver only and not by the supervisor who in this case stated that the entries were made and signed by him is completely wrong doing on his part and the statement being given to the reply of the questions are misleading / tried to be smartly made to mislead the inquiry which was being conducted into the incident which took place on 06-08-2017 by the prosecution and then CE (South). 2.[9] It is observed that Shri Kiran Pal’s statements are not in consonance. His replies are likely to keep himself in comfortable position involving the others. The erratic statements of Sh. Kiran Pal S/o Sh. Raje Ram shows that he himself is involved in the episode trying to manipulate sequences and facts of the incidents which took place on 06- 08-2017 causing loss of precious lives of 3 person.
2.11 It is observed that the Log Sheet which was produced before Shri R.S. Negi, the Preliminary Inquiry Officer and attached with the Preliminary Inquiry Report is an original log sheet (Ref PD-21/9-16) which was signed by AE,JE and EE-Co. Another log sheet is a fake log sheet to form a story by Sh. Kiran Pal S/o Sh. Sh. Raje Ram and Sh. Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o Sh. Narayan said to be working with M/s Kleenwell Enviro Engg. Service Co.
2.12 It is not understood as why the log sheet was needed to change and manipulated when vehicle was not made to work/operated. Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram dared to make the entries said to be vacant for the day of 6th Aug 2017 and manipulated the log sheet.
2.15 After going through the entries of the log sheets, it is seen that the pattern of the entries writing dates are different in original and duplicate log sheets. I observe that where date is mentioned there is no need to mention the day like 01-08- 2017 Mangalwar, 02-08-2017 Budhwar, 03-08-2017 Virwar and 04-08-2017 Shukrwar etc to me it seems to be in a manipulated log sheet/book.
2.17 In a statement (PD-10) Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o Shri Narayan has stated that the machine was not operated as no one directed him to operate the jetting machine and in the preliminary inquiry by then CE(South) Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram stated that the machine was out of order and so was not engaged (Ref. Statement of Shri Bindra Prasad, PW-4) during the preliminary inquiry. There seems to be consonance in the statement that the machine was never engaged and operated and any manipulation what so ever, admittingly, done by Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram; has been his wrong doing to save himself and his colleague Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver of the bitter consequences. Here I observe that whatever has been done, by Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram and Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver of M/s Kleenwell Enviro Engg. Service Co. And none of the Cos have been involved in the change of log sheet and its manipulations.
2.27 Ref. Question 18 asked by Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO to Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram. Did you sign entries on behalf of driver alongwith making entries in the log book? Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram replied that I signed on behalf of driver.
2.47 Ref.Question 2 asked by Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO to Shri Vikas Rathi, JE PW-8. There are two sets of log books, one duly signed by JE/AE/EE concerned (PD-21/9-16) and the other not signed by them (PD-21/1- 8) which is the authentic log sheets? Shri Vikas Rathi, PW-8 replied that during the course of investigation both were received from Police Station, Lajpat Nagar. As per practice the log book duly signed by the concerned JE/AE/EE on the front page is valid log book. It is not possible to accept the log book without the signature of concerned JE/ZE/EE.
2.48 Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram admittingly manipulated the log sheet and signed on behalf of Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o Shri Narayan. As stated by Shri Manoj Kumar in PD-9 the jetting machine was asked to be engaged/brought at Lal Sai Market instead of the machine was said to be brought opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir that too was not operated as no directions was given by any of the Cos including Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO. Conclusion: With the above facts and circumstances, I find Sh. Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO was no way involved in the manipulation and change of the log sheet as such the charges framed under the article-2 is not proved.”
24. Evidently, the petitioner has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, i.e. allegations levelled both in Article 1 as well as Article 2, which are identical to allegation in the chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC, therefore, the question that needs to be adverted to is what is the effect of petitioner’s exoneration in disciplinary proceedings on the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 354/2017.
25. Incidentally, this issue is no more res integra. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1 the appellant therein was exonerated of all charges in departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission and the conclusion of exoneration was concurred by the Union Public Service Commission which led to passing of final orders by the President in favour of the appellant. However, when the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cognizance of charge, the High Court dismissed the petition. The challenge was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and in the given factual backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which reads as under:
26. The above formulated question was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms:
27. Likewise, in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, the question arose that after exoneration of the appellant in adjudication proceedings under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, whether criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances can be allowed to be continued. In this factual backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
38. 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;
(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; and
(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.
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
28. Similarly, in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., (2020) 9 SC 636 also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the report of the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”) whereby the CVC refused to give sanction for prosecution of the appellant opining that prima facie charges do not seem to be established against the appellant, observed that chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak and accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the Special Judge whereby they had observed that there was no need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC and proceeded against the petitioner. For making such observations the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to para 38(vii) of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra). The relevant observation of the Court reads thus: “14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.
15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22-12-2011, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the judgment [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5042] of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code.”
29. The legal position which thus, emerges from the law exposited in the above noted decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that once an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in disciplinary proceedings after the said allegations have been found to be unsustainable on merits, then criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. This reasoning is predicated on the principle that the standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt which is far higher than preponderance of probability which is the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said decisions.
30. It is also relevant to note that a coordinate bench of this Court in a common judgment in Shiv Hari & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 362 and other connected matter, while dealing with the cases of the co-accused, i.e., the Assistant Engineer and the Executor Engineer has already quashed the same FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom qua them, relying upon the decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra). The relevant extract from Shiv Hari (supra) reads thus:
24. A perusal of the above reveals that in the said case, charges of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be proved due to lack of evidence on record. Whereas in the present case, the Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings considered all the evidence and material on record to conclude that the charges against Petitioners could not be proved for want of reliability of the Prosecution's witness and evidence presented, and in light of the evidence submitted by and examination of the Petitioners.
25. In Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra), the Apex Court has affirmed the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in respect of the accused who have been exonerated in disciplinary enquiry proceedings. Videocon Industries Limited v. State of Maharahstra, (2016) 12 SCC 315, elaborated on the yardsticks laid down in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) as under:
26. Further, in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636, and in J Sekar v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2022) 7 SCC 370, also applied the principles delivered in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra).
27. This Court is of the view that the principles culled out in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) should squarely apply to the present case. The standard of proof being higher in criminal cases, and considering that the Disciplinary Authority has already confirmed the exoneration of Petitioners on merits, prosecution on the same set of facts should not be allowed to continue against them. The standard of proof which is warranted for conviction in a criminal case is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, whereas the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities. When a person has been found not to be guilty and disciplinary proceedings have exonerated them, they cannot be convicted on the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially, when the evidence that is to be adduced in the criminal proceeding is identical to the very same evidence in the disciplinary proceedings. Even though both the criminal proceedings and civil proceedings are separate from each other and continue parallely, it can be said with certitude that if it is found fit not to proceed ahead in disciplinary proceedings which is based on the same set of facts and the same set of evidence, then it would be unreasonable and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to allow the continuation of criminal prosecution against the very same person. This Court has carefully seen the findings arrived at in the disciplinary proceedings and is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution against the two Petitioners who were facing identical charges in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary inquiry and have been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings.
28. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to quash the charges framed against the Petitioners in FIR No. 354/2017.”
31. In view of the above clear expositions, since the petitioner has already been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting the criminal proceedings for the offences under section 304 IPC and sections 177/218/467/468/471 IPC, which are premised on the same set of allegations.
32. As regards the offences under Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, which were added subsequently, this Court is of the view that the said offences invoked are subservient or ancillary to the substantive offences under section 304 IPC and sections 177/218/467/468/471 IPC, which cannot exist without the substantive or main offence. This Court has already found the substantive or main offence to be untenable in view of the petitioner’s exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings. Once the primary substantive offences cannot be prosecuted against the petitioner, the subservient or ancillary offences under Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, based on such primary offence would also fall apart.
33. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the present is a fit case for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR NO. 354/2017 registered at PS Lajpat Nagar under Sections 304/177/218/467/468/471/120-B IPC, Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
34. The petition stands disposed of.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J JULY 7, 2026 N.S. ASWAL