Subhash Sharma v. Govt of NCT, Delhi & Ors.

(vii) Sh. Deepak Raj, Data Entry Operator,

4. Subsequently, F Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were arraigned as an accused. report under Section 173 CrPC was filed b accused.

5. Later on, disciplinary present petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 memorandum dated 08.01.2016 and the petitioner was his written statement “Article-I That Shri Subhash Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while working in Central Jail-3, Tihar, during the year 2013, committed gross misconduct in as much as he expressed his willingness to extend conveniences to the prisoner (s) in lieu of monetary consideration violation of the provisions of Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, Rules framed there handed over to a committee of officers constituted to identify the who were shown accepting illegal gratification in lieu of the favour extended to the prisoners lodged in jail. On the basis of the report given by the following 07 officials including the present petitioner were

(i) Sh. Subhash Sharma, Dy. Suptd. (petitioner herein)

(ii) Sh. Devender Kumar, Head Warden-471,

(iii) Ms. Kavita, Matron-1314,

(iv) Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Driver,

(vi) Sh. Sushil Kumar, Data Entry Operator,

(vii) Sh. Deepak Raj, Data Entry Operator, bsequently, FIR came to be registered under Sections Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the aforesaid seven accused persons were arraigned as an accused. After completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed by the police disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the present petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 memorandum dated 08.01.2016 and the petitioner was called tatement of defence to the following articles of charge: 3, Tihar, during the year 2013, committed gross misconduct in as much as he expressed his willingness to extend undue facilities and conveniences to the prisoner (s) in lieu of monetary consideration handed over to a committee of officers constituted to identify the officials of the favour to be in jail. On the basis of the report given by the 07 officials including the present petitioner were titioner herein), ections 7/13 of the the aforesaid seven accused persons After completion of investigation, the final y the police against the said proceedings were also initiated against the present petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide ed upon to submit of defence to the following articles of charge: 3, Tihar, during the year 2013, committed gross misconduct in as undue facilities and conveniences to the prisoner (s) in lieu of monetary consideration, in under and Delhi Jail Manual. By the above acts of omission and commission, the aforesaid Sharma, Dy. Superintendent (Jail) exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article-II That Shri Subhash aforesaid post and during the aforesaid period, committed gross misconduct in as much as he indulged in communication with a person, unauthorisedly, without permission of the Superintendent of Jail, in violation of the provisions of Rule Meetings and Duties of Officers) Rules, 1988. By the above acts of omission and commission, the aforesaid Shri Subhash Sharma, Dy. Superintendent (Jail) exhibited lack of absolute integr devotion to duty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. servant, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental proceeding said inquiry report the petitioner

7. Insofar as first the same to be “not proved” and the agreed to by the D

8. However, qua recorded his finding that the same is “not proved” authority while disagreeing recorded its dissenting Public Service Commission (in short under and Delhi Jail Manual. By the above acts of omission and commission, the aforesaid That Shri Subhash Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while functioning in the iolation of the provisions of Rule 145 of Delhi Prisons (Inspection, Meetings and Duties of Officers) Rules, 1988. Sharma, Dy. Superintendent (Jail) exhibited lack of absolute integr [Emphasis supplied] The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental proceedings eventually culminated into an inquiry report. In the said inquiry report the petitioner was exonerated of both the charges. first Article of Charge is concerned the inquiry officer the same to be “not proved” and the finding of the Enquir Disciplinary Authority. qua the second Article of Charge though the his finding that the same is “not proved”, but while disagreeing with the said finding of the E dissenting note, therefore, the matter was refe Commission (in short “UPSC”) for its advice Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while functioning in the of Delhi Prisons (Inspection, The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the culminated into an inquiry report. In the the charges. is concerned the inquiry officer held nquiry Officer were the Enquiry Officer but the disciplinary of the Enquiry Officer herefore, the matter was referred to the Union advice.

9. The UPSC vide the CDs in question short the “CO”) i.e. the petitioner herein scrutiny of the reporter observed that there by the CO.

10. Referring to the testimony o Superintendent, Jail who was examined as PW[2] during the departmental proceedings, the UPSC also observed petitioner herein) with the reporter was part of the official. As per Section 2 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 the Gazetted Officer, therefore, his actions were in accordance with Rule 61 of the Delhi Jail Manual. not established against the against him may be dropped” 13.09.2022 reads as under: “4.9. The Commission note that as per the CDs, CO has done reasonable rigorous scrutiny of the reporter, who was pretending to be an Advocate. When the CO asked the specifies of the prisoner, Identity card of the reporter, the Vakalatnama and ordered for TALASI/Search of the re There is no video/audio showing demanding/accepting bribe by the CO. XXXX

4.14. The Commission further observe that PW then Superintendent, Central Jail deposed during vide its detailed advice dated 13.09.2022 in question observed that it is apparent that the Charged Officer (in short the “CO”) i.e. the petitioner herein has done reasonable rigorous of the reporter who was pretending to be an Advocate. I observed that there is no video / audio showing demand / acceptance of eferring to the testimony of the witness Sh. B.S. Jarial, the then, Jail who was examined as PW[2] during the departmental the UPSC also observed that interacting ) with the reporter was part of the functions s per Section 2 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 the, therefore, his actions were in accordance with Rule 61 of the Delhi Jail Manual. Accordingly, the UPSC advised that not established against the CO, Shri Subhash Sharma, may be dropped”. The relevant part of the UPSC’s advice dated 13.09.2022 reads as under: The Commission note that as per the CDs, it is apparent that the for TALASI/Search of the reporter the reporter fumbled and shivered.

XXXX XXXX

4.14. The Commission further observe that PW-2 Shri B.S. Jarial, the then Superintendent, Central Jail deposed during the inquiry e dated 13.09.2022 after examining Charged Officer (in reasonable rigorous an Advocate. It was also acceptance of bribe the witness Sh. B.S. Jarial, the then, Jail who was examined as PW[2] during the departmental interacting of the CO (the functions of the charged s per Section 2 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2000 the CO is a, therefore, his actions were in accordance with Rule 61 of that “….charges are the proceedings he relevant part of the UPSC’s advice dated it is apparent that the porter the reporter fumbled and shivered. XXXX

2 Shri B.S. Jarial, the the inquiry ‘Q.5. Did you notice any exchange, demand or acceptance of any illegal gratification by the official identified as Dy. Supdt. In the verbatim? A.[5] No. Q.6. Did you come across any discussion by any other official with the reporters of News manner, while watching or preparing the verbatim? A.[6] The name of the CO never appeared in the discussions by other officials with the reporters. Q.7. Whether Dy. Supdt, can be termed as subordinate officer A.7. As per Delhi Jail Manual, Chapter 13 Delhi Prisons (Inspection, Meetings, and Duties of Officers) Rules, 1988 Dy. Supdt. Is the Chief Executive Officer and also a Gazetted Officer (Para 48, 49, 52, 145), Dy. Supdt. Is required to control the subordi Q.[8] Whether Dy. Supdt. Is empowered to meet and hear the grievances of the reporter, who posed as an advocate? A.[8] Yes, he is fully empowered and comp Q.[9] Whether Dy. Supdt. Is required to take the permission of the Supdt. Or any higher authority before interacting with anybody in relation to matters concerning prisoners for redressal of their grievances? A.[9] NO. 4.15. The Commission observe that the deposition of the prosecution witness indicate that interacting with the reporter office was part of the functions of the CO.

4.16. The Commission observe that as per section 2 of Deputy Superintendent is a gazetted Officer. Therefore not withstanding the provisions of Rule 145 Meeting and Duties of officers) rule, 1988 brought out in the charge is in accordance with Rule 61 of the Delhi Jail Manual. the CO was required to meet various persons prison without which the functions assigned to the Deputy reporters of News Nation which names or incriminates the CO in any manner, while watching or preparing the verbatim? officials with the reporters. Q.7. Whether Dy. Supdt, can be termed as subordinate officer Dy. Supdt. Is required to control the subordinate officers. of the reporter, who posed as an advocate? A.[8] Yes, he is fully empowered and competent. gher authority before interacting with anybody in relation to The Commission observe that the deposition of the prosecution witness indicate that interacting with the reporter part of the functions of the CO. The Commission observe that as per section 2 of withstanding the provisions of Rule 145 of Delhi Prisons (Inspe Meeting and Duties of officers) rule, 1988 the actions of the CO as Manual. In due discharge of the duties of Deputy Superintendent the CO was required to meet various persons on day to day basis in the Nation which names or incriminates the CO in any Q.7. Whether Dy. Supdt, can be termed as subordinate officer? nate officers. gher authority before interacting with anybody in relation to The Commission observe that the deposition of the prosecution witness indicate that interacting with the reporter by the CO in his The Commission observe that as per section 2 of the Act the CO, a of Delhi Prisons (Inspection, the actions of the CO as In due discharge of the duties of Deputy Superintendent on day to day basis in the Superintendent(Jail) cannot be performed.

4.17. Accordingly, having regard to the facts of the case, rule position and the deposition of witness, the Commission hold the Article-II as not proved.

5. In the light of the observations and findings as discussed above and after taking into account all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commission conclude that since the charges are not established against the CO, Shri. Subhash Sharma the proceedings against him may be dropped. They advise accordingly.”

11. Premised on the advice of the UPSC, an order dated 10.10.2023 came to be passed whereby, after considering the evidence circumstances of the case India by virtue of power veste Rules, 1972 [Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension the proceedings initiated against the charged offic and exonerated him from the charges levelled against him vide memorandum dated 08.01.2016. The relevant part of the order dated 10.10.2023 reads as under: “2. And whereas, the Charged Officer (CO), Shri Subhash Sharma did not Therefore, an enquiry was CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Officer were appointed.

3. And whereas, Sh. Omkar Singh, DANICS as the Inquiring Authority vide Order No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV /2602-2606 dated Superintendent, Central Jail was Officer vide Order NO. 03.03.2016. Superintendent(Jail) cannot be performed. and the deposition of witness, the Commission hold the II as not proved. may be dropped. They advise accordingly.” [Emphasis suppli Premised on the advice of the UPSC, an order dated 10.10.2023 came to be passed whereby, after considering the evidence, the fact circumstances of the case, a decision was taken by the Hon’ble President of by virtue of power vested in him under Rule 9 of the CCS Pensions ow Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rule 2022 the proceedings initiated against the charged officer i.e. the petitioner herein

2. And whereas, the Charged Officer (CO), Shri Subhash Sharma did not accept the charges vide reply dated 28.01.2016. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Inquiring Authority & Presenting Officer were appointed.

3. And whereas, Sh. Omkar Singh, DANICS (Retd.) was appointed Inquiring Authority vide Order No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV 2606 dated 03.03.2016 and Sh. Prakash Chand, Dy. Superintendent, Central Jail was appointed as the Presenting Officer vide Order No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV/2607-2611 dated and the deposition of witness, the Commission hold the charge under Premised on the advice of the UPSC, an order dated 10.10.2023 came facts on record and decision was taken by the Hon’ble President of d in him under Rule 9 of the CCS Pensions Amendment Rule 2022] to drop i.e. the petitioner herein

2. And whereas, the Charged Officer (CO), Shri Subhash cept the charges vide reply dated 28.01.2016. conducted against him under Rule 14 of Inquiring Authority & Presenting ) was appointed Inquiring Authority vide Order No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV 03.03.2016 and Sh. Prakash Chand, Dy. appointed as the Presenting 2611 dated

4. And whereas, the Inquiring Authority, submitted the inquiry report dt. 23.03.2018 and in his findings, the Inquiring Authority has held both the articles of charge as "Not proved" against the CO. The competent authority in GNCTD agreed with findings with referen the findings with reference to Article of Charge II of the Authority. A copy of the inquiry report and disagreement note was served upon the CO, vide memorandum No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV /19342-1934[4] dated

5. And whereas, the CO submitted his representation dated 05.01.2019 against the Inquiry Report and Disagreement note which was examined by was found devoid of merit.

6. And wherea of disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are deemed to have been continued under of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2022).

7. And whereas, the Government of NCT of Delhi forwarded the case, along with the findings/recommendation of the competent disciplinary Ministry of Home Affairs, Presidential Order under Rule 9 of (Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules,2022).

8. And whereas, the case was examined in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and then it was referred to Union Public Service Commission for their advice before passing Presidential Order under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2022).

9. And whereas, the Union Public Service Commission vide letter No.3/332/2021 advice. The Union Public Service Commission has advised that ereas, the Inquiring Authority, submitted the inquiry findings with reference to Article of Charge I and disagreed with the findings with reference to Article of Charge II of the 1934[4] dated 05.12.2018, for his representation. against the Inquiry Report and Disagreement note which was examined by the Competent Authority in GNCTD and was found devoid of merit.

6. And whereas, due to retirement of the CO during the pendency disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings initiated 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are deemed to have been continued under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Now Rule 8 nsion) Amendment Rules, 2022). along with the findings/recommendation of the competent authority, i.e., Chief Secretary, GNCTD, to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for passing Presidential Order under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 No.3/332/2021-S.I dated 13.09.2022 has tendered their ereas, the Inquiring Authority, submitted the inquiry and disagreed with the findings with reference to Article of Charge II of the Inquiring 05.12.2018, for his representation. against the Inquiry Report and Disagreement note the Competent Authority in GNCTD and s, due to retirement of the CO during the pendency disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings initiated 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are deemed to have been Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Now Rule 8 along with the findings/recommendation of the competent authority, i.e., Chief Secretary, GNCTD, to the India for passing CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 S.I dated 13.09.2022 has tendered their "... the charges are not established against the Subhash Shanna, the proceedings against him may be dropped. They advise accordingly

10. And whereas, in terms of Department of Personnel & Training's OM of UPSC's aforesaid CO for his representation

11. And whereas, the CO submitted his representation dt. 14.03.2023 and has submitted that he is in full agreement with the advice of UPSC

12. And whereas, the case records have been examined and no facts / circumstances have been observed whic interference with the conclusion drawn by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in its advice dt. 13.09.2022.

13. Now therefore, the President, after considering the evidence & facts on record and circumstances of the case, has decided virtue of power vested under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2022) drop the proceedings initiated against Sh. Subhash Sharma, Dy. Superintendent (Now Retd.), Government of NCT of Delhi and to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him vide memorandum No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV/328 dated 08.01.2016. It is ordered accordingly.”

12. The learned counsel invites the attention of the Court to chargesheet filed by the police Charge alleged in memorandum dated 08.01.2016 in juxtaposition, that the allegations following paragraph “From the Investigation conducted so far it unauthorized person (News Reporter) entered in Tihar Jail No. 3 the charges are not established against the They advise accordingly". Training's OM No. 11012/8/2011-Estt.A dated 19.11.2014, a copy of UPSC's aforesaid advice dated 13.09.2022 was furnished to the CO for his representation vide memorandum dated 16.01.2023. whereas, the CO submitted his representation dt. and has submitted that he is in full agreement with the advice of UPSC dated 13.09.2022. facts / circumstances have been observed which warrant any & facts on record and circumstances of the case, has decided 1972 (Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2022) erate him from the charges levelled against him vide is ordered accordingly.” The learned counsel invites the attention of the Court to chargesheet filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC and the first Article of Charge alleged in memorandum dated 08.01.2016 in juxtaposition, s made therein are identical. The reference was made to the following paragraph of the chargesheet: “From the Investigation conducted so far it was found that an the charges are not established against the CO, Shri Estt.A dated 19.11.2014, a copy advice dated 13.09.2022 was furnished to the vide memorandum dated 16.01.2023. whereas, the CO submitted his representation dt. and has submitted that he is in full agreement with the h warrant any & facts on record and circumstances of the case, has decided by 1972 (Now Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2022) to erate him from the charges levelled against him vide The learned counsel invites the attention of the Court to read the and the first Article of Charge alleged in memorandum dated 08.01.2016 in juxtaposition, to contend The reference was made to the was found that an alongwith electronics device and reached in the officer of Dy. Superintendent Sh. Subhash Sharma without any restrictions with the connivance of accused Sh. Devender Kumar, Head Warder-471, Tihar Jail and Sh. Subhash Sharma (placed in column No.11) accepted illegal gratification in lieu of favour / facilities to be extended to prisoners lodged in 7/13 POC Act, 1988 r/w 120B/34 IPC 19 POC Act against the accused Sh. Subhash Sharma and Sh. Devender Kumar has already been obtained from competent authority and same are placed on rec

13. He further submits that since the petitioner has already been exonerated of all the charges in the departmental proceedings therefore, the criminal proceedings which are also premised on the identical allegations cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings is ‘preponderance of probability threshold of proof is higher, the buttress his contention, decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme C 1996 (9) SCC 1; Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan 130 and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari EOW, CBI and Anr.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned APP for the State and have perused the record.

15. The fundamental question which arise consideration of this Court is that whether the proceedings No.55/14 which are proceedings were initiated connivance of accused Sh. Devender Kumar, Head 471, Tihar Jail both the accused namely Sh. Devender Sh. Subhash Sharma (placed in column No.11) accepted prisoners lodged in Tihar Jail and thus committed an offence u/s 7/13 POC Act, 1988 r/w 120B/34 IPC. Prosecution sanction u/s authority and same are placed on record.” He further submits that since the petitioner has already been exonerated nasmuch as the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings derance of probability’ whereas in case of criminal proceedings the threshold of proof is higher, the same being ‘beyond reasonable doubt buttress his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr., (2020) 9 SCC 636. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned APP for the State and have perused the record. The fundamental question which arises in the present petit this Court is that whether the proceedings arising out of are premised on identical allegations on which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner connivance of accused Sh. Devender Kumar, Head Sh. Devender Sh. Subhash Sharma (placed in column No.11) accepted Tihar Jail and thus committed an offence u/s. Prosecution sanction u/s He further submits that since the petitioner has already been exonerated nasmuch as the standard of proof in the departmental proceedings criminal proceedings the beyond reasonable doubt’. To he learned counsel has placed reliance on the P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (2013) 11 SCC Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the in the present petition for the arising out of FIR premised on identical allegations on which disciplinary against the present petitioner are liable to be quashed once th proceedings.

16. To appreciate the controversy articulated in the present petition, at the outset it would be imperative to ascertain whether the allegations in the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR N proceedings are identical. For said purpose apt would it be to examine the allegations in the Chargesheet filed under Section 173 CrPC as well as Memorandum dated 08.01.2016 in juxtaposition, which is as under: ALLEGATIONS IN CHARGE SHEET UNDER SECTION 173 CRPC …..From the Investigation conducted so far it was found that an unauthorized person (News Reporter) entered in Tihar Jail No. 3 alongwith electronics device and reache in the officer of Dy. Superintendent Sh. Subhash Sharma without any restrictions with the connivance of accused Sh. Devender Kumar, Head Warder-471, Tihar Jail accused namely and Sh. Subhash Sharma (placed in column No.11) accepted illegal gratification in lieu of favour / facilities to be extended to prisoners lodged in Tihar Jail and thus committed an offence u/s 7/13 POC Act, 1988 r/w 120B/34 IPC Prosecution sanction u/s 19 POC Act against the accused the petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinary To appreciate the controversy articulated in the present petition, at the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 55/14 and the disciplinary ALLEGATIONS IN THE CHARGE SHEET UNDER SECTION 173 CRPC MEMORANDUM DATED 08.01.2016 From the Investigation conducted so far it was found that an unauthorized person (News Reporter) entered in Tihar Jail No. 3 alongwith electronics device and reached in the officer of Dy. Superintendent Sh. Subhash Sharma without any restrictions with the connivance of accused Sh. Devender Kumar, Head 471, Tihar Jail both the accused namely Sh. Devender Sh. Subhash Sharma (placed in column No.11) illegal gratification in lieu of favour / facilities to be extended to prisoners lodged in Tihar Jail and thus committed an offence u/s 7/13 POC Act, 1988 r/w 120B/34 IPC. Prosecution sanction u/s 19 POC Act against the accused Article-I Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while working in Central Jail-3, Tihar, during the year 2013, committed gross misconduct in as much as he expressed his willingness to extend conveniences to the prisoner (s) in lieu of monetary consideration in violation of the provisions of Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, Rules framed there under and Delhi Jail Manual. in the disciplinary To appreciate the controversy articulated in the present petition, at the and the disciplinary MEMORANDUM DATED Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while working in 3, Tihar, during the year 2013, committed gross misconduct in as much he expressed his willingness to extend conveniences to the prisoner (s) in lieu of monetary consideration, in violation of the provisions of Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, Rules framed there under and Delhi Jail Manual.….. Sh. Subhash Sharma and Sh. Devender Kumar has already been obtained from competent authority and same are placed on record.”

17. A comparative reading of the the charge alleged in Article whereby disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, makes it evident that the allegation illegal gratification/monetary consideration for extending favour/ facilities to the prisoners lodged in Tihar Jail.

18. For the sake of completeness it may be stated that proceedings, there was an Memorandum dated 08.01.201 communication with a person, unauthorisedly without permission of the Superintendent of Jail” of deciding the controversy involved in the present case analogous to aforesaid Article 173 CrPC, though the petitioner was exonerated from the charge in the said Article-II as well.

19. Since it is an in the disciplinary proceedings in Article-I, which is identical to the allegation in the chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC, t what is the effect of petitioner on the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.55/2014. question need not detain this Court any Sh. Subhash Sharma and Sh. evender Kumar has already been obtained from competent authority and same are placed A comparative reading of the chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC the charge alleged in Article-I of the Memorandum dated 08.01.201 it evident that the allegation contained therein is identical viz., the prisoners lodged in Tihar Jail. For the sake of completeness it may be stated that in the departmental there was an additional charge contained in Article Memorandum dated 08.01.2016 viz., the petitioner Superintendent of Jail”, but the said charge has no relevance for the purpo of deciding the controversy involved in the present case analogous to aforesaid Article-II is there in the charge sheet under Section, though the petitioner was exonerated from the charge in the said an admitted position that the petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, more particularly from the charge contained I, which is identical to the allegation in the chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC, therefore, the question that needs to be addressed is as to what is the effect of petitioner’s exoneration in the disciplinary the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.55/2014. question need not detain this Court any longer inasmuch as the chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC and f the Memorandum dated 08.01.2016 identical viz., acceptance of in the departmental additional charge contained in Article-II of the 6 viz., the petitioner “indulged in but the said charge has no relevance for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in the present case as no allegation is there in the charge sheet under Section, though the petitioner was exonerated from the charge in the said admitted position that the petitioner has been exonerated more particularly from the charge contained I, which is identical to the allegation in the chargesheet under tion that needs to be addressed is as to exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.55/2014. However, this as the same is no more res integra.

20. In P.S. Rajya charges in the departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission and the conclusion of Public Service Commission which led to the President in favour of the appellant. However, when the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cognizance of the charge, the High Court dismisse Supreme Court. In formulated the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment reads as under: “3. The short question that arises for our consid whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)( Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.”...

21. Then the Hon’ble Supreme Court answer question and quashed the criminal proceedings “17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established P.S. Rajya (supra), the appellant therein was exonerated of all the and the conclusion of exoneration was concurred Public Service Commission which led to the passing of final orders by the charge, the High Court dismissed the petition. The challenge In the given factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)( identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental ”... Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the above formulated and quashed the criminal proceedings by observing At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established (supra), the appellant therein was exonerated of all the curred by the Union of final orders by the The challenge was taken to the factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which eration in this appeal is the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the appellant was exonerated in the departmental the above formulated by observing thus: At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for the required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the the findings rendered in the departmental appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings XXXX

23. Even though all these Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceeding appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27 impugned criminal proceedin

22. In Lokesh Kumar Jain appellant therein alleging financial irregularities and misappropriation of Rs.4,39,617/-. In departmental proceedings with identical charges, the appellant was exonerated received the payments for various transactions as the original and carbon copies of bills were not available. repeated oral requests and statutory n department of the appellant could not provide the requisite incriminating documents. The police, therefore, submit Magistrate after five months of lodging of FIR submission of the complainant that he is ready to cooperate and procure requisite documents, directed re Vide order dated 27.03.1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal reserving the reasons to be given later, which were given vide judgment in P.S. Rajya (supra) proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings XXXX XXXX Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central ce Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the order dated 27-3-1996[1] for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs. Lokesh Kumar Jain (supra), an FIR was registered against the n departmental proceedings with identical charges, the ant was exonerated on the ground that it was not clear as to who the payments for various transactions as the original and carbon copies of bills were not available. In the criminal case, the police also made repeated oral requests and statutory notices under Section 91 CrPC but the documents. The police, therefore, submitted the final closure report to the Magistrate after five months of lodging of FIR. But the Magistrate up submission of the complainant that he is ready to cooperate requisite documents, directed re-investigation under Section Vide order dated 27.03.1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal reserving the reasons to be given later, which were given vide judgment in P.S. Rajya (supra) proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings…… XXXX facts including the Report of the Central ce Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in s initiated against the for allowing the appeal and quashing the gs and giving consequential reliefs.” (supra), an FIR was registered against the n departmental proceedings with identical charges, the the ground that it was not clear as to who the payments for various transactions as the original and carbon the police also made under Section 91 CrPC but the closure report to the ut the Magistrate upon submission of the complainant that he is ready to cooperate with the police investigation under Section Vide order dated 27.03.1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal reserving the reasons to be 156(3) CrPC. Thereafter, investigation remained pe inspite of the appellant making the investigation. The appellant move the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him, but the High Court declined to quash the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appea the criminal proceedings. was observed as under: “23. In P.S. Rajya was exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission. The criminal case was pending since long, in spite of the fact that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding for same charge.

24. Having re charges which are identical could not be established in the departmental proceedings, one wonders what is there further to proceed against the accused in criminal proceedings where standard of proof r establish the guilt is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings.

25. Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that th appellant is one of the fit cases where the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC. It is not disputed by the respondent that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant with regard to id

28. ……..Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by the respondent, the constitutional guarantee of a speedy investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is ther the appellant has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for identical charges, keeping the case pending against the appellant for investigation, is unwarranted, the FIR deserves to be 156(3) CrPC. Thereafter, investigation remained pending for 12 of the appellant making request to the police authorities to complete quash the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appea the criminal proceedings. Relying upon the decision of PS Rajya was observed as under: P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, this Court noticed that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of proceeding for same charge. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court held that if the accused in criminal proceedings where standard of proof r establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the present case of the appellant with regard to identical charges made in the FIR xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is thereby violated and nding for 12-13 years request to the police authorities to complete quash the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed PS Rajya (supra), it, this Court noticed that the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceeding in the light of report of gard to the aforesaid fact, this Court held that if the accused in criminal proceedings where standard of proof required to Having regard to the factual scenario, noted above, and for the e present case of the entical charges made in the FIR…… xxxx Considering the fact that delay in the present case is caused by eby violated and as quashed.”

23. In Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal question arose that after the exoneration of the appellant in the adjudication proceedings under the provisions of whether criminal prosecution o be allowed to be continued. Court observed as under: “26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of fa adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident f said judgment: (AIR p. 27) “… I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem. Whether a f actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will have to be ca XXXX

38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

hyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal proceedings under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation 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: We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of fa criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (AIR p. 27) Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or will have to be carefully examined.”

XXXX XXXX The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: hyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.,[2] the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, facts and circumstances can he Hon’ble Supreme We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal case is Therefore, in our opinion, the determination of facts in the [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had rom the following passage of the inding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or XXXX The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication 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 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 meri

(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 higher standard of proof in criminal cases XXXX

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. it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the shall be an abuse of the process of the court.

24. In Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Court relying upon the report of the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”) whereby the CVC refused to give sanction for prosecution of the appellant ) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; ) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; ) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; ) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; ) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not Criminal Procedure; ) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and ) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

XXXX XXXX In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.” Surendranath Tewari (supra) also, the Hon’ble Supreme ) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be proceedings is not necessary before ) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are ) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the not binding on the proceeding for ) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not ) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the t, prosecution may continue; and ) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation continue, the underlying principle being the XXXX In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case trial of the person concerned also, the Hon’ble Supreme opining that prima facie appellant, observed 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 the petitioner. For making such observations the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to para 38(vii) of observation of the Court reads thus: “14. From our point of view, para 3 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 chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak Surendranath Tewari High Court and that of the Special Judge and discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code.”

25. At this stage the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an FIR or criminal proceedings emanating therefrom could advantageously be referred to, wherein the Court observed as under:

26. The legal position that emerges is that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, th premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. The reasoning for this recourse articulated in above decisions is that the standard of proof in criminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far hi than ‘preponderance of probability’, disciplinary proceedings. In case the lower threshold could not be met in the disciplinary proceeding, there is no purpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedings where the standar higher.

27. The reliability and genuineness of the allegations against the petitioner has already been tested during the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner has been exonerated of such allegations. As noted Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the UPSC on the charge contained in Article criminal case arising out of FIR No.55/2014 the present case can undisputedly be brought under sub sub-paras (5) of para 102 of

28. Keeping in perspective the above discussion case which warrants exercising of Section 482 CrPC proceedings. to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The legal position that emerges is that if an accused has been allegations have been found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution of proof in criminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far hi ‘preponderance of probability’, the standard of proof proceedings where the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is The reliability and genuineness of the allegations against the petitioner has been exonerated of such allegations. As noted above, the findings of the charge contained in Article-I which is identical to the allegations in the criminal case arising out of FIR No.55/2014, are concurrent. In this backdrop can undisputedly be brought under sub-paras (3) read with paras (5) of para 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra). Keeping in perspective the above discussion, the present case is a fit case which warrants exercising of inherent powers by this Cour Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and the subsequent criminal to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” The legal position that emerges is that if an accused has been en the criminal prosecution of proof in criminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far higher the standard of proof required in d of proof required to establish the guilt is The reliability and genuineness of the allegations against the petitioner above, the findings of the I which is identical to the allegations in the, are concurrent. In this backdrop paras (3) read with, the present case is a fit powers by this Court under for quashing of FIR and the subsequent criminal

29. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and consequently, No.55/2014 dated 11.07.2014 registered at PS ACB, N Sections 7/13 of the Prevention o proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

30. The petition stands disposed of. MAY 16, 2024 N.S. ASWAL /dss Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and consequently, No.55/2014 dated 11.07.2014 registered at PS ACB, N of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed. The petition stands disposed of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and consequently, the FIR No.55/2014 dated 11.07.2014 registered at PS ACB, New Delhi under f Corruption Act, 1988 alongwith all other VIKAS MAHAJAN, J