- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29909 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUDDARAJU S/O. LATE BASEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, MANDYA, RESIDING AT NO. 541, 11TH MAIN, 7TH A CROSS, K.C. LAYOUT MYSORE - 570 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313. 3. SRI. M.K. PADMANABHAN, S/O. LATE KUPPUSWAMY M., MAJOR, RESIDING AT GRAZE RESIDENCY, NEAR PRASANNA GANAPATHI TEMPLE Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 NEW LAYOUT, MADIKERE TOWN, MADIKERE -571 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LETHIF B., SPL. PP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MANJUNATH M., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 F CRPC, 1973 READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET DTD. 12.04.2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 FILED BY THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, CHAMARAJANAGAR (NOW TRANSFERRED TO R-2-KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHAMARAJANAGAR) AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-F) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.77/2021 (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. 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. 2. The prosecution alleges that, while the petitioner-accused was serving as Deputy Director of Treasuries, the complainant approached him for the release of his retrial benefits. In relation to this, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 petitioner-accused demanded a gratification amount of Rs.9,000/-, which, after negotiation, was reduced to Rs.4,000/-. Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioner-accused, and a trap was conducted. In the said trap, the petitioner was caught red-handed accepting the gratification of Rs.4,000/-, and his hands were washed in a chemical solution that turned pink. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a departmental enquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta based on similar allegations. The Enquiry Officer, after a detailed examination, submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner were not proven, resulting in the petitioner being exonerated on the 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 enquiry may have a bearing on criminal proceedings if the findings are based on the same set of facts. 4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent Lokayukta contends that exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not automatically lead to acquittal or exoneration in a criminal trial, as the standard of proof - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 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 enquiries. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 6. 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; (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; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 (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." 7. 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 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 8. 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. 9. 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 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.” 10. The Apex Court in the case of SANJU RAJAN NAYAR -VS- JAYARAJ AND ANOTHER, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 582, ruled that, in the absence of facts and circumstances, we allow the appeal, more so when despite the accused having been exonerated in the departmental proceedings yet the competent authority, vide Annexure P3 proceeded to accord sanction for prosecution, and the High Court in our considered view failed to account for the principles enunciated by this Court in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. It is further ruled that, the continuation of the trial not on the very same evidence as what weighed with the authorities in exonerating the employee in the departmental proceedings, and this fact, also appears not to have been considered by the High Court in its correct perspective. 11. In the present case, the department enquiry was initiated on the same set of charges and by examining the same set of witnesses. In the departmental enquiry, the complainant was examined as PW.3, and the shadow witness was examined as PW.1 and the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.4. The Enquiry Officer after appreciating the evidence of the said witnesses, recorded - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 a finding that, the charges leveled against the petitioner is not proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority which ultimately resulted in exoneration of the petitioner on merits in the departmental enquiry. 12. In the instant case, exoneration of the petitioner-accused was not on technical ground but on merits, and the witnesses to be examined by the prosecution in the trial are one and the same. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SANJU RAJAN NAYAR supra is distinguished and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Therefore, when the petitioner has been exonerated on a similar set of charges in the departmental enquiry 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 the accused would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12554 WP No. 29909 of 2024 ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C. No.77/2021 pending on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Chamarajanagar, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21