Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar S/O Paramanna ... vs The Karnataka Lokayukta on 10 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
WP No. 104828 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 104828 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. PARAMANNA MANAMATTI,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
R/O. #2051, VANASIRI NAGAR,
BEHIND SDM DENTAL COLLEGE,
SATTUR DHARWAD-580009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTIK GANACHARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT
R/BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BAGALKOT-587102.
2. SRI GURUBASAVA @ GURUBASAVACHARYA
Digitally signed by B
S/O. MALLAPPA SINDHUR,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR AGED ABPUT 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/O JANATA ELECTRICALS,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.01.25
11:20:53 +0530
C-6, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
VIDYAGIRI-587102, BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT
IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
29/04/2020 VIDE AND FIR NO.04/2020 DATED 29/04/2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND B FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SEC. 7(A) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, PENDING
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
WP No. 104828 of 2024
ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BAGALKOT IN SPL.C.NO.64/2021 AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS THEREON, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
Here is the revised version of the text with grammatical and
legal refinements:
2. The petitioner, who is facing charges for offences
punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, has approached this Court seeking relief.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto
complainant was awarded a contract for the repair of transformers
at Ilkal. The second respondent submitted five bills to the petitioner,
who was working as an Executive Engineer, for processing and
forwarding them to the Corporate Office for approval. It is alleged
that the petitioner demanded a sum of ₹10,000/- as illegal
gratification in relation to the same. On 29.04.2020, the petitioner
was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount
of ₹10,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
departmental inquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta based on
similar allegations. The Inquiry Officer, after a detailed examination,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner
were not proven, resulting in the petitioner being exonerated on
merits. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.,
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636, wherein it was held that an acquittal
in a departmental inquiry may have a bearing on criminal
proceedings if the findings are based on the same set of facts.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent
Lokayukta contends that exoneration in a departmental inquiry
does not automatically lead to acquittal or exoneration in a criminal
trial, as the standard of proof and the scope of the two proceedings
are different. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi,
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685, which emphasizes that criminal
proceedings are distinct and independent of departmental inquiries.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for both
parties have been considered.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 3
SCC 581 has laid the principle which reads thus:
"7. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can
broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be
launched simultaneously;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are
independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the
adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for
criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate
is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the
provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of
the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the
nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is
on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue;
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the
allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person
held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying
principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three learned
Judges in the case of the State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) without
reference to the decision in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal
(supra) has held that the High Court misread the judgment in P S
Rajya -vs- State of Bihar ((1996) 9 SCC 1)) and exoneration in
departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration
or acquittal in a criminal case. It was further noted that the decision
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
of P S Rajya case which was rendered by the Bench consisting of
two learned Judge was distinguished in a subsequent decision in
the case of State -vs- L. Krishnamohan which was again by a two
Judges and accordingly held that the decision in PS Rajya was not
an authority for the presumption that exoneration in departmental
proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a
criminal trial.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd.
v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 has held that a decision can be
said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in
ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate
court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record.
Therefore the decision of State (NCT of Delhi) which has not taken
into account and consideration of the earlier decision of the
Supreme Court in Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam.
10. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik
G Kalaghatigi -vs- West Patent Press Co. Ltd. has held that where
there is a conflict between two decisions of the Govindanaik
Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same Bench strength, it is later of
the decision that would prevail. The decision of the Bench
consisting of three Judges in the case of Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari would prevail over the decision in the case of State (NCT of
Delhi) rendered by consisting of three Judges which is a later
judgment. Though the decision of the State (NCT of Delhi) was
unanimous and whereas in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal it was
a majority of 2:1, the total strength of the Bench that they decided
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
the case is deemed to be the Bench strength of that decision
despite dissenting opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shanti Fragrances vs- Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 305.
11. In the present case, a departmental inquiry was
initiated against the petitioner-accused, and after its conclusion, the
Inquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges against
the delinquent had not been proven. Therefore, in view of the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned criminal
proceedings cannot be continued against the accused, who has
been exonerated on identical charges in the departmental inquiry.
The underlying principle is that criminal cases require a higher
standard of proof.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta has
relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Puneet Sabarwal VS. CBI, 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 324, wherein at
para 40 it was ruled as follows:
"40. The decision in Ashoo Surendranath [Ashoo
Surendranath Tewari v. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI,
(2020) 9 SCC 636.] is not applicable to the present case because
the decision in Ashoo Surendranath [Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari v. Dy. Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC
636.] concerned a singular prosecution under the provisions of the
Penal Code, 1860 where the sanctioning authority had, while
denying sanction, recorded on merits that there was no evidence
to support the prosecution case. In that context, the court was of
the opinion that a criminal proceeding could not be continued.
However, in the present case, the charges were framed under the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellants seek to rely
upon the findings recorded by the authorities under the Income-tax
Act. The scope of adjudication in both the proceedings are
markedly different and therefore the findings in the latter cannot be
a ground for discharge of the accused persons in the former. The
proceedings under the Income-tax Act and its evidentiary value
remains a matter of trial and they cannot be considered as
conclusive proof for discharge of an accused person."
13. The aforementioned cited decision is distinguishable, as
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that findings recorded under the
Income Tax Act cannot form the basis for exoneration in a criminal
case. However, in the present case, the petitioner has been
exonerated in a departmental inquiry on the same set of charges,
where the scope of adjudication is similar.
14. Therefore, when the petitioner has been exonerated on
a similar set of charges in the departmental inquiry by the
competent authority, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
EOW, CBI (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings
against accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of the legal
process. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:427
ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C. No.64/2021
pending on the filed of the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, as against the petitioner
herein, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
KMS
Ct:vh
