Subhash Sharma v. Govt of Nct, Dlehi & Ors

JUDGMENT

AN, J. t petition has been filed seeking quash

07.2014 registered at PS ACB, New Del ntion of Corruption Act, 1988 against the p f the prosecution is that News Nation, a operation titled 'Kala Pani' allegedly sho hi Prisons interacting with reporters. Some gedly accepting bribe money for exten o the Delhi Prisons Rules. he telecast version in the form of compa NEW DELHI ed on: 09.05.2024 ed on: 16.05.2024 ... Petitioner i with Mr R. A. n Hashmi and Ms. cates. ... Respondents PP for State with ngh, PS Anti hing of FIR No. lhi under Sections present petitioner. TV news channel owing some of the e of the employees nding favours to act disk (CD) was handed over to a who were shown extended to the pri said Committee, fo identified:

(i) Sh. Subh

(ii) Sh. Deve

(iii) Ms. Kav

(iv) Sh. Sud

(v) Sh. Moh

(vi) Sh. Sush

(vii) Sh. Dee

¶4Subsequent Prevention of Corr were arraigned as report under Sect accused.

¶5Later on, d present petitioner memorandum date his written stateme "Article-I That Shri Subh Jail-3, Tihar, d much as he ex conveniences to violation of the committee of officers constituted to ide accepting illegal gratification in lieu of soners lodged in jail. On the basis of the r ollowing 07 officials including the prese hash Sharma, Dy. Suptd. (petitioner herein ender Kumar, Head Warden-471, vita, Matron-1314, desh Kumar, Driver, hit Panwar, Data Entry Operator, hil Kumar, Data Entry Operator, epak Raj, Data Entry Operator, tly, FIR came to be registered under Sec ruption Act, 1988 and the aforesaid seven an accused. After completion of invest tion 173 CrPC was filed by the police disciplinary proceedings were also init r under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) R ed 08.01.2016 and the petitioner was calle ent of defence to the following articles of hash Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while wo during the year 2013, committed gross m xpressed his willingness to extend und o the prisoner (s) in lieu of monetary provisions of Delhi Prisons Act, 2000, R ntify the officials f the favour to be report given by the nt petitioner were n), ctions 7/13 of the n accused persons tigation, the final e against the said tiated against the Rules, 1965 vide ed upon to submit f charge: orking in Central misconduct in as due facilities and consideration, in Rules framed there under and Delh By the above ac Sharma, Dy. Sup devotion to du contravening th Article-II That Shri Subh aforesaid post misconduct in a unauthorisedly, violation of the Meetings and D By the above ac Sharma, Dy. Sup devotion to du contravening th

¶6The submis departmental proce said inquiry report

¶7Insofar as fi the same to be "n agreed to by the D

¶8However, qu recorded his findi authority while di recorded its dissen Public Service Com i Jail Manual. cts of omission and commission, the afores perintendent (Jail) exhibited lack of abso uty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. e provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) hash Sharma, Dy. Supdt. (Jail), while f and during the aforesaid period, as much as he indulged in communicatio without permission of the Superinten e provisions of Rule 145 of Delhi Pri Duties of Officers) Rules, 1988. cts of omission and commission, the afores perintendent (Jail) exhibited lack of abso uty, which is unbecoming of a Govt. e provisions of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) [Em sion of the learned counsel for the peti eedings eventually culminated into an inq t the petitioner was exonerated of both the irst Article of Charge is concerned the in not proved" and the finding of the Enqu Disciplinary Authority. ua the second Article of Charge though th ing that the same is "not proved", but isagreeing with the said finding of the nting note, therefore, the matter was refe mmission (in short "UPSC") for its advic said Shri Subhash olute integrity and Servant, thereby Rules, 1964. functioning in the committed gross on with a person, ndent of Jail, in isons (Inspection, said Shri Subhash olute integrity and servant, thereby Rules, 1964." mphasis supplied] itioner is that the quiry report. In the e charges. nquiry officer held uiry Officer were he Enquiry Officer t the disciplinary e Enquiry Officer erred to the Union ce.

¶9The UPSC the CDs in questio short the "CO") scrutiny of the rep observed that there by the CO.

¶10Referring to Superintendent, Ja proceedings, the petitioner herein) official. As per Gazetted Officer, the Delhi Jail Man not established ag against him may b

13.09.2022 reads a "4.9. The Co CO has don pretending t prisoner, Id for TALASI/ There is no CO. XXXX

4.14. The Co then Superi vide its detailed advice dated 13.09.2022 on observed that it is apparent that the Ch i.e. the petitioner herein has done rea porter who was pretending to be an Adv e is no video / audio showing demand / ac o the testimony of the witness Sh. B.S ail who was examined as PW2 during UPSC also observed that interacting with the reporter was part of the functio Section 2 of the Delhi Prisons Act, 2 therefore, his actions were in accordance nual. Accordingly, the UPSC advised tha gainst the CO, Shri Subhash Sharma, be dropped". The relevant part of the UPS as under: ommission note that as per the CDs, it is ne reasonable rigorous scrutiny of the r to be an Advocate. When the CO asked th dentity card of the reporter, the Vakalatn /Search of the reporter the reporter fumb video/audio showing demanding/accep XXXX XXXX ommission further observe that PW-2 Sh ntendent, Central Jail deposed during th 2 after examining harged Officer (in asonable rigorous ocate. It was also cceptance of bribe S. Jarial, the then the departmental of the CO (the ons of the charged 000 the CO is a e with Rule 61 of at "….charges are the proceedings SC's advice dated s apparent that the reporter, who was he specifies of the nama and ordered bled and shivered. pting bribe by the XXXX hri B.S. Jarial, the he inquiry 'Q.5. Did yo illegal grati verbatim? A.5 No. Q.6. Did you reporters of manner, whi A.6 The nam officials with Q.7. Whethe A.7. As per D Meetings, an Executive O Dy. Supdt. Is Q.8 Whether of the report A.8 Yes, he i Q.9 Whether Or any high matters conc A.9 No.

4.15. The C witness indi office was pa

4.16. The Co Deputy Su withstanding Meeting and brought out Jail Manual the CO was prison with ou notice any exchange, demand or ac ification by the official identified as D u come across any discussion by any othe f News Nation which names or incrimina ile watching or preparing the verbatim? me of the CO never appeared in the disc h the reporters. er Dy. Supdt, can be termed as subordinat Delhi Jail Manual, Chapter 13 Delhi Pr nd Duties of Officers) Rules, 1988 Dy. S Officer and also a Gazetted Officer (Para Is required to control the subordinate offic r Dy. Supdt. Is empowered to meet and he ter, who posed as an advocate? is fully empowered and competent. r Dy. Supdt. Is required to take the permis her authority before interacting with anyb cerning prisoners for redressal of their g Commission observe that the deposition o icate that interacting with the reporter art of the functions of the CO. ommission observe that as per section 2 of uperintendent is a gazetted Officer. g the provisions of Rule 145 of Delhi Pr d Duties of officers) rule, 1988 the actio in the charge is in accordance with Rul l. In due discharge of the duties of Depu required to meet various persons on day t hout which the functions assigned cceptance of any Dy. Supdt. In the er official with the tes the CO in any cussions by other te officer? risons (Inspection, Supdt. Is the Chief a 48, 49, 52, 145), cers. ear the grievances ssion of the Supdt. body in relation to rievances? of the prosecution by the CO in his f the Act the CO, a Therefore not risons (Inspection, ons of the CO as le 61 of the Delhi uty Superintendent to day basis in the to the Deputy Superintend

4.17. Accord and the dep Article-II as

¶5In the ligh after taking Commission against the may be drop

¶11Premised on to be passed where circumstances of t India by virtue of Rules, 1972 [Now the proceedings in and exonerated him dated 08.01.2016. under: "2. And wh Sharma did n Therefore, an CCS (CCA) R Officer were a

¶3And wherea as the Inquir /2602-2606 d Superintenden Officer vide

03.03.2016. dent(Jail) cannot be performed. dingly, having regard to the facts of the c osition of witness, the Commission hold s not proved. ht of the observations and findings as dis g into account all other aspects relevan n conclude that since the charges are CO, Shri. Subhash Sharma the proceed pped. They advise accordingly." [Em n the advice of the UPSC, an order dated eby, after considering the evidence, the fa the case, a decision was taken by the Hon f power vested in him under Rule 9 of t w Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment R nitiated against the charged officer i.e. the m from the charges levelled against him v The relevant part of the order dated 10 ereas, the Charged Officer (CO), Sh not accept the charges vide reply dated 2 n enquiry was conducted against him unde Rules, 1965 and Inquiring Authority & appointed. as, Sh. Omkar Singh, DANICS (Retd.) wa ring Authority vide Order No. F.72(21) dated 03.03.2016 and Sh. Prakash C nt, Central Jail was appointed as the Order No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV/2607-2 case, rule position the charge under cussed above and t to the case, the e not established dings against him mphasis supplied]

10.10.2023 came acts on record and n'ble President of the CCS Pensions Rule 2022] to drop e petitioner herein vide memorandum .10.2023 reads as ri Subhash

28.01.2016. er Rule 14 of Presenting as appointed )/2013/DOV Chand, Dy. Presenting 2611 dated

¶4And where report dt. 2 Authority has against the C findings with the findings w Authority. A c served upon t /19342-19344

¶5And wher

05.01.2019 a which was ex was found dev

¶6And where of disciplinar under Rule 14 continued und of CCS (Pens

¶7And where case, along w disciplinary Ministry of Presidential (Now Rule 8 o

¶8And where Affairs, Gove Public Servi Presidential O (Now Rule 8

¶9And wher letter No.3/3 advice. The U eas, the Inquiring Authority, submitted

23.03.2018 and in his findings, the s held both the articles of charge as "N CO. The competent authority in GNCTD a h reference to Article of Charge I and disa with reference to Article of Charge II of th copy of the inquiry report and disagreeme the CO, vide memorandum No. F.72(21) 4 dated 05.12.2018, for his representation reas, the CO submitted his representa against the Inquiry Report and Disagre xamined by the Competent Authority in G void of merit. eas, due to retirement of the CO during th ry proceedings, the disciplinary proceedin 4 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are deemed t der Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ( sion) Amendment Rules, 2022). eas, the Government of NCT of Delhi for with the findings/recommendation of the authority, i.e., Chief Secretary, GNCT Home Affairs, Government of India f Order under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) R of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules,2022 eas, the case was examined in the Minist ernment of India and then it was referre ice Commission for their advice befo Order under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) R of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 20 reas, the Union Public Service Comm 332/2021-S.I dated 13.09.2022 has tend Union Public Service Commission has a the inquiry Inquiring Not proved" agreed with agreed with he Inquiring ent note was )/2013/DOV n. ation dated eement note GNCTD and he pendency ngs initiated to have been (Now Rule 8 rwarded the e competent TD, to the for passing Rules, 1972 2). try of Home ed to Union ore passing Rules, 1972 022). mission vide dered their advised that "... the cha Subhash Sha They advise a

¶10And wh Training's OM of UPSC's afo CO for his rep

¶11And wh

14.03.2023 an advice of UPS

¶12And wher facts / circum interference Service Comm

¶13Now ther & facts on re virtue of pow 1972 (Now R drop the proc Superintende to exonerate memorandum is ordered acc

¶12The learned chargesheet filed b Charge alleged in m that the allegations following paragrap "From the In unauthorized rges are not established against the anna, the proceedings against him may b accordingly". ereas, in terms of Department of Pe M No. 11012/8/2011-Estt.A dated 19.11.2 oresaid advice dated 13.09.2022 was furn presentation vide memorandum dated 16 hereas, the CO submitted his represe nd has submitted that he is in full agreem SC dated 13.09.2022. reas, the case records have been examin mstances have been observed which w with the conclusion drawn by the Un mission (UPSC) in its advice dt. 13.09.20 refore, the President, after considering th ecord and circumstances of the case, has wer vested under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pens ule 8 of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rul ceedings initiated against Sh. Subhash S ent (Now Retd.), Government of NCT of him from the charges levelled agains m No. F.72(21)/2013/DOV/328 dated 08. cordingly." [Em d counsel invites the attention of the C by the police under Section 173 CrPC and memorandum dated 08.01.2016 in juxtapo s made therein are identical. The referenc ph of the chargesheet: nvestigation conducted so far it was fou person (News Reporter) entered in Tiha CO, Shri be dropped. ersonnel & 2014, a copy nished to the

6.01.2023. entation dt. ment with the ned and no warrant any nion Public

¶022he evidence s decided by sion) Rules, les, 2022) to Sharma, Dy. f Delhi and st him vide .01.2016. It mphasis supplied] Court to read the the first Article of osition, to contend e was made to the und that an ar Jail No. 3 alongwith ele Superintenden the connivan Warder-471, and Sh. Subh illegal gratifi prisoners lod 7/13 POC Ac 19 POC Act Devender Ku authority and

¶13He further su of all the charges proceedings which sustained, inasmuc is 'preponderance threshold of proof buttress his conte decisions of the H 1996 (9) SCC 1; L 130 and Ashoo Su EOW, CBI and An

¶14I have hear learned APP for th

¶15The fundam consideration of th No.55/14 which ar proceedings were ectronics device and reached in the off nt Sh. Subhash Sharma without any restr nce of accused Sh. Devender Kum Tihar Jail both the accused namely Sh hash Sharma (placed in column No.11 ication in lieu of favour / facilities to be e dged in Tihar Jail and thus committed an ct, 1988 r/w 120B/34 IPC. Prosecution s against the accused Sh. Subhash Sharm umar has already been obtained from d same are placed on record." [Em ubmits that since the petitioner has already s in the departmental proceedings theref h are also premised on the identical alleg ch as the standard of proof in the departm of probability' whereas in case of crimina f is higher, the same being 'beyond reaso ention, the learned counsel has placed Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Rajya Vs Lokesh Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajastha urendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superint nr., (2020) 9 SCC 636. rd the learned counsel for the petitioner he State and have perused the record. mental question which arises in the presen his Court is that whether the proceedings re premised on identical allegations on w initiated against the present petitioner ficer of Dy. rictions with mar, Head h. Devender 1) accepted extended to offence u/s sanction u/s ma and Sh. m competent mphasis supplied] y been exonerated fore, the criminal gations cannot be mental proceedings al proceedings the onable doubt'. To d reliance on the s. State of Bihar, an (2013) 11 SCC tendent of Police, r, as well as, the nt petition for the arising out of FIR which disciplinary r are liable to be quashed once th proceedings.

¶16To apprecia outset it would b criminal proceedin proceedings are id allegations in the Memorandum date ALLEGATIO CHARGE S SECTION 173 …..From th conducted so that an unau (News Repor Tihar Jail N electronics de in the of Superintenden Sharma withou with the conni Sh. Devender Warder-471, T accused name and Sh. Su (placed in accepted illega lieu of favour extended to pr Tihar Jail and an offence u/ 1988 r/w Prosecution s POC Act aga e petitioner has been exonerated in ate the controversy articulated in the prese e imperative to ascertain whether the a ngs arising out of FIR No. 55/14 and dentical. For said purpose apt would it b Chargesheet filed under Section 173 ed 08.01.2016 in juxtaposition, which is a NS IN THE HEET UNDER 3 CRPC ALLEGATIONS IN MEMORANDUM D

08.01.2016 he Investigation far it was found uthorized person rter) entered in No. 3 alongwith evice and reached fficer of Dy. nt Sh. Subhash ut any restrictions ivance of accused r Kumar, Head Tihar Jail both the ely Sh. Devender ubhash Sharma column No.11) al gratification in r / facilities to be risoners lodged in d thus committed /s 7/13 POC Act, 120B/34 IPC. sanction u/s 19 ainst the accused Article-I That Shri Su Sharma, Dy.

(Jail), while work Central Jail-3, during the year committed misconduct in as as he expresse willingness to undue facilities conveniences to prisoner (s) in l monetary conside in violation o provisions of Prisons Act, 2000 framed there und Delhi Jail Manual the disciplinary ent petition, at the allegations in the d the disciplinary be to examine the CrPC as well as as under: N THE DATED ubhash Supdt. king in Tihar, 2013, gross s much ed his extend s and o the lieu of eration, of the Delhi 0, Rules der and l.….. Sh. Subhash Devender Kum been obtained authority and on record."

¶17A comparati the charge allege whereby disciplina it evident that the a illegal gratification the prisoners lodge

¶18For the sake proceedings, there Memorandum da communication w Superintendent of of deciding the co analogous to afore 173 CrPC, though Article-II as well.

¶19Since it is an in the disciplinary in Article-I, which Section 173 CrPC what is the effect on the criminal pr question need not Sharma and Sh. mar has already d from competent same are placed ive reading of the chargesheet under Secti ed in Article-I of the Memorandum d ary proceedings were initiated against the allegation contained therein is identical v n/monetary consideration for extending fa ed in Tihar Jail. e of completeness it may be stated that in e was an additional charge contained in ated

08.01.2016 viz., the petitione ith a person, unauthorisedly without p Jail", but the said charge has no relevanc ontroversy involved in the present case esaid Article-II is there in the charge sh h the petitioner was exonerated from the c n admitted position that the petitioner has proceedings, more particularly from the h is identical to the allegation in the c , therefore, the question that needs to be of petitioner's exoneration in the discipli roceedings arising out of FIR No.55/201 detain this Court any longer inasmuch ion 173 CrPC and dated 08.01.2016 e petitioner, makes viz., acceptance of avour/ facilities to n the departmental n Article-II of the r "indulged in permission of the ce for the purpose e as no allegation eet under Section charge in the said s been exonerated charge contained chargesheet under addressed is as to inary proceedings

¶14However, this as the same is no more res integra.

¶20In P.S. Rajy charges in the de Commission and t Public Service Co President in favour High Court under charge, the High C Supreme Court. In formulated the fol reads as under: "3. The short whether the r the appellant Prevention of identical cha proceedings i Commission Commission.

¶21Then the H question and quash "17. At the o respondent co required to es standard of p proceedings. departmental the same. He proceedings proceed furth appellant. Fo ya (supra), the appellant therein was exo epartmental inquiry conducted by the C the conclusion of exoneration was concur ommission which led to the passing of fi r of the appellant. However, when the app r Section 482 CrPC for quashing the c Court dismissed the petition. The challeng n the given factual backdrop, the Hon'bl llowing question in paragraph 3 of the t question that arises for our consideratio respondent is justified in pursuing the pr t under Section 5(2) read with Sectio f Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding t arge the appellant was exonerated in in the light of a report submitted by the and concurred by the Union "... Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the a hed the criminal proceedings by observin outset we may point out that the learne ould not but accept the position that the stablish the guilt in a criminal case is fa proof required to establish the guilt in He also accepted that in the present case, l proceedings and in the criminal procee did not dispute the findings rendered in and the ultimate result of it. On these her then there is no difficulty in acceptin or if the charge which is identical could no onerated of all the Central Vigilance rred by the Union inal orders by the pellant moved the cognizance of the e was taken to the le Supreme Court judgment, which on in this appeal is rosecution against on 5(1)(e) of the the fact that on an the departmental Central Vigilance Public Service above formulated ng thus: d counsel for the standard of proof ar higher than the the departmental , the charge in the edings is one and the departmental e premises, if we ng the case of the t be established in a departmenta the reports su proceed again XXXX

¶23Even Vigilance Co unfortunately gone into in Vigilance Com departmental the appellant peculiar facts appellant can taken by the H order dated impugned cri

¶22In Lokesh K appellant therein Rs.4,39,617/-. In appellant was exo received the paym copies of bills wer repeated oral requ department of the documents. The p Magistrate after fi submission of the and procure requi 1Vide order dated 27.03.1 given later, which were gi al proceedings and in view of the admitted ubmitted by the valuers one wonders what nst the appellant in criminal proceedings XXXX XXXX though all these facts including the Repo ommission were brought to the notice of y, the High Court took a view that the issue n the final proceedings and the Repor mmission, exonerating the appellant of th l proceedings would not conclude the crim t. We have already held that for the reas s of this case, the criminal proceedings ini nnot be pursued. Therefore, we do not ag High Court as stated above. These are th 27-3-1996 1 for allowing the appeal a minal proceedings and giving consequen Kumar Jain (supra), an FIR was regis alleging financial irregularities and mi departmental proceedings with identi onerated on the ground that it was not ments for various transactions as the ori re not available. In the criminal case, the uests and statutory notices under Section e appellant could not provide the requis police, therefore, submitted the final clos five months of lodging of FIR. But the complainant that he is ready to coopera isite documents, directed re-investigatio 996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal reser iven vide judgment in P.S. Rajya (supra) d discrepancies in t is there further to s…… XXXX ort of the Central f the High Court, es raised had to be rt of the Central he same charge in minal case against sons given, on the itiated against the gree with the view he reasons for our and quashing the ntial reliefs." stered against the sappropriation of ical charges, the t clear as to who iginal and carbon e police also made n 91 CrPC but the site incriminating sure report to the Magistrate upon te with the police on under Section rving the reasons to be 156(3) CrPC. The inspite of the appe the investigation. T seeking to quash th quash the FIR. The the criminal proce was observed as un "23. In P.S. R was exonerat the Central V Service Comm of the fact t proceeding fo

¶24Having r charges which proceedings, accused in cr establish the establish the g

25.Having re reasons stated appellant is exercised its respondent th appellant with

¶28……..Con the responden and trial unde the appellan proceedings the appellant ereafter, investigation remained pending ellant making request to the police autho The appellant move the High Court under he FIR lodged against him, but the High e Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the ap eedings. Relying upon the decision of PS nder: Rajya v. State of Bihar, this Court noticed ted in the departmental proceeding in the Vigilance Commission and concurred by mission. The criminal case was pending s that the appellant was exonerated in or same charge. regard to the aforesaid fact, this Court h are identical could not be established in one wonders what is there further to pr riminal proceedings where standard of guilt is far higher than the standard of guilt in the departmental proceedings. egard to the factual scenario, noted ab d below, we are of the opinion that the p one of the fit cases where the High C power under Section 482 CrPC. It is no hat the departmental proceeding was ini h regard to identical charges made in the xxxx xxxx xxxx x nsidering the fact that delay in the present nt, the constitutional guarantee of a spe er Article 21 of the Constitution is thereb nt has already been exonerated in t for identical charges, keeping the case t for investigation, is unwarranted, the F g for 12-13 years orities to complete Section 482 CrPC Court declined to ppeal and quashed S Rajya (supra), it that the appellant e light of report of the Union Public since long, in spite the departmental t held that if the n the departmental roceed against the proof required to proof required to bove, and for the present case of the Court should have ot disputed by the itiated against the e FIR…… xxxx t case is caused by eedy investigation by violated and as the departmental e pending against FIR deserves to be quashed."

¶23In Radhesh question arose tha proceedings under whether criminal p be allowed to be c Court observed as "26. We may much highe Enforcement adjudication the same alle Therefore, i adjudication criminal case not considere criminal case said judgmen "… I only r and n Wheth action me to determ will h XXXX

¶38The ratio be stated as fo 2(2011) 3 SCC 581 [Em hyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Benga at after the exoneration of the appellant in r the provisions of Foreign Exchange prosecution on the same set of facts and c continued. In this factual backdrop, the H under: y observe that the standard of proof in a er than that of the adjudication p t Directorate has not been able to prov proceedings and the appellant has bee egation. The appellant is facing trial in t in our opinion, the determination o proceedings cannot be said to be i e. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] th ed the effect of a finding of fact in a ci es and that will be evident from the follow nt: (AIR p. 27) must, however, say that in answering the referred to civil cases where the actions not those where the proceedings or act her a finding of fact arrived at in such ns would be relevant in criminal cases, it i o decide in this case. When that que mination, the provisions of Section 41 of have to be carefully examined." XXXX XXXX which can be culled out from these decis follows: mphasis supplied] al and Anr.,2 the n the adjudication Regulation Act, circumstances can Hon'ble Supreme a criminal case is proceedings. The ve its case in the en exonerated on the criminal case. of facts in the irrelevant in the he Full Bench had ivil case over the ing passage of the e question, I have s are in personam tions are in rem. h proceedings or is unnecessary for estion arises for the Evidence Act, XXXX sions can broadly

(i) Adjudi launched s

(ii) Decisio initiating c

(iii) Adjud independen

(iv) The f adjudicatio criminal pr

(v) Adjudic prosecution Article 20 Criminal P

(vi) The fi person faci of finding. technical g

(vii) In cas is found to criminal p cannot be higher stan XXXX

¶39In our op whether the a proceeding f person conce it is found on Act in the adj shall be an ab

¶24In Ashoo S Court relying upon whereby the CVC cation proceedings and criminal pro imultaneously; on in adjudication proceedings is not criminal prosecution; dication proceedings and criminal nt in nature to each other; finding against the person facing pr on proceedings is not binding on the rosecution; cation proceedings by the Enforcement D n by a competent court of law to attract

(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 Procedure; inding in the adjudication proceedings ing trial for identical violation will depen . If the exoneration in adjudication p ground and not on merit, prosecution may se of exoneration, however, on merits wh o be not sustainable at all and the perso prosecution on the same set of facts an allowed to continue, the underlying pr ndard of proof in criminal cases. XXXX XXXX pinion, therefore, the yardstick would b allegation in the adjudication proceedin for prosecution is identical and the ex erned in the adjudication proceedings is o merit that there is no contravention of the djudication proceedings, the trial of the p buse of the process of the court." [Em Surendranath Tewari (supra) also, the H n the report of the Central Vigilance Com C refused to give sanction for prosecution osecution can be necessary before proceedings are rosecution in the e proceeding for Directorate is not t the provisions of 0 of the Code of in favour of the nd upon the nature roceedings is on y continue; and ere the allegation on held innocent, nd circumstances rinciple being the XXXX be to judge as to ngs as well as the xoneration of the on merits. In case e provisions of the person concerned mphasis supplied] Hon'ble Supreme mmission ("CVC") n of the appellant opining that prima appellant, observed same facts appear High Court and th there was no need f the petitioner. For referred to para observation of the "14. From o Court had b CVC repor exonerated.

¶15Applying clear that in chances of appear to b Surendranat High Court from the offe

¶25At this stage State of Haryana exercise of inheren criminal proceedin to, wherein the Co "102. In the b provisions of th enunciated by th the extraordinar Section 482 of t a facie charges do not seem to be establ d that chances of conviction in a criminal to be bleak and accordingly, set aside th hat of the Special Judge whereby they h for sanction under Section 197 CrPC and p r making such observations the Hon'bl 38(vii) of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supr Court reads thus: our point of view, para 38(vii) is importa bothered to apply this parameter, then on rt on the same facts, the appellant sh g the aforesaid judgments to the facts n view of the detailed CVC order dated conviction in a criminal trial involvin be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the th Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine B and that of the Special Judge and discha fences under the Penal Code." [Em e the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 33 nt power under Section 482 CrPC for qu ngs emanating therefrom could advantage ourt observed as under: backdrop of the interpretation of the he Code under Chapter XIV and of the his Court in a series of decisions relating ry power under Article 226 or the inher the Code which we have extracted and re lished against the trial involving the he judgment of the had observed that proceeded against e Supreme Court ra). The relevant ant and if the High n a reading of the hould have been of this case, it is d 22-12-2011, the ng the same facts judgment [Ashoo Bom 5042] of the arge the appellant mphasis supplied] Supreme Court in 35, relating to the uashing an FIR or eously be referred various relevant principles of law g to the exercise of rent powers under eproduced above, we give the foll such power coul court or otherw possible to lay channelised and exhaustive list o exercised.

(1) Whe the com accepted or make

(2) Wher material cognizab under S Magistra

(3) Whe complain not discl against t

(4) Wher offence investiga Magistra

(5) Whe absurd prudent sufficien

(6) Whe provisio criminal of the pr Code or grievanc

(7) Wher fide and lowing categories of cases by way of illu ld be exercised either to prevent abuse of wise to secure the ends of justice, thoug y down any precise, clearly defined d inflexible guidelines or rigid formula of myriad kinds of cases wherein such re the allegations made in the first infor mplaint, even if they are taken at their d in their entirety do not prima facie cons out a case against the accused. re the allegations in the first information ls, if any, accompanying the FIR do ble offence, justifying an investigation b Section 156(1) of the Code except unde ate within the purview of Section 155(2) o ere the uncontroverted allegations mad nt and the evidence collected in suppor lose the commission of any offence and the accused. re, the allegations in the FIR do not const but constitute only a non-cogniza ation is permitted by a police officer with ate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ere the allegations made in the FIR or and inherently improbable on the ba person can ever reach a just conclus nt ground for proceeding against the acc ere there is an express legal bar engraf ns of the Code or the concerned Act l proceeding is instituted) to the institution roceedings and/or where there is a specifi r the concerned Act, providing efficaciou ce of the aggrieved party. re a criminal proceeding is manifestly at d/or where the proceeding is maliciously ustration wherein the process of any gh it may not be and sufficiently e and to give an power should be rmation report or r face value and stitute any offence n report and other o not disclose a by police officers er an order of a of the Code. de in the FIR or rt of the same do d make out a case titute a cognizable ble offence, no hout an order of a ) of the Code. complaint are so asis of which no sion that there is cused. fted in any of the t (under which a n and continuance fic provision in the us redress for the ttended with mala instituted with an ulterior view to s

¶26The legal p exonerated and h allegations have be premised on the sa reasoning for this of proof in crimin than 'preponderan disciplinary procee disciplinary proce proceedings where higher.

¶27The reliabili has already been te has been exonerate Inquiry Officer, th charge contained criminal case arisin the present case ca sub-paras (5) of pa

¶28Keeping in case which warra Section 482 CrP proceedings. motive for wreaking vengeance on the ac spite him due to private and personal gru [Em position that emerges is that if an a held innocent in the disciplinary proce een found to be unsustainable, then the cri ame set of allegations cannot be permitted recourse articulated in above decisions is nal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt' w nce of probability', the standard of p edings. In case the lower threshold could eeding, there is no purpose in prosecu e the standard of proof required to esta ity and genuineness of the allegations aga ested during the disciplinary proceedings ed of such allegations. As noted above, t he Disciplinary Authority as well as of in Article-I which is identical to the a ng out of FIR No.55/2014, are concurrent an undisputedly be brought under sub-pa ara 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra). perspective the above discussion, the pr ants exercising of inherent powers by PC for quashing of FIR and the sub ccused and with a udge." mphasis supplied] ccused has been eedings after the minal prosecution d to continue. The s that the standard which is far higher proof required in d not be met in the ting the criminal ablish the guilt is ainst the petitioner and the petitioner the findings of the the UPSC on the allegations in the t. In this backdrop aras (3) read with resent case is a fit this Court under bsequent criminal

¶29Accordingly No.55/2014 dated Sections 7/13 of th proceedings emana

¶30The petition MAY 16, 2024 N.S. ASWAL /dss y, the present petition is allowed and cons d 11.07.2014 registered at PS ACB, N he Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 al ating therefrom, is quashed. n stands disposed of. VIKA sequently, the FIR New Delhi under longwith all other AS MAHAJAN, J

* IN THE + CRL.M.C. SUBHASH GOVT OF N CORAM: HON'BLE VIKAS MAHAJA 1. The present 55/2014 dated 11.0 7/13 of the Preven 2. The case of telecasted a sting o employees of Delh were shown alleg inmates contrary to 3. A copy of th HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT Reserve Pronounce 450/2017 SHARMA .. Through: Mr Salman Hashmi Hashmi, Mr. Zeeshan Sana Hashmi, Advoc versus NCT, DLEHI & ORS. .. Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, AP Insp. Ranvir Sin Corruption Branch MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN