Jaiveer Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana

CRMoM-36189-2023o 1oooo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAo AToCHANDIGARHo CRMoM-36189-2023 DateoofoDecision:o29.01.2025 JaiveeroYadavoandoothers ...oPetitioners Versus StateoofoHaryanao oooooo ooooooo…oRespondent CORAMo:ooooHON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoN.S.SHEKHAWAT o Presento: Mr.oPuneetoBali,oSr.oAdvocateowitho Mr.oP.K.oChugh,oAdvocateoando Ms.oNiharikaoMittal,oAdvocate forotheopetitioners.o Ms.oSheenuoSura,oDAG,oHaryana.o oN.S.SHEKHAWAToo,oJ.o

¶1Theopetitionersohaveofiledotheopresentopetitionounder Sectiono482oCr.P.C.owithoaoprayerotooquashotheoFIRoNo.o20odated

18.10.2005ounderoSectionso13(1)(D)oreadowithoSectiono13(2)oof PreventionoofoCorruptionoActo1988o(hereinafterotoobeoreferredoaso'the PCoAct')oandoSectionso420,o467,o468,o471oando120-BoIPC,oAnti Corruption o Bureau, o Hisar o (Annexure o P-2), o charge o sheet o dated

05.07.2023o(AnnexureoP-20),otheosummoningoorderodatedo05.07.2023 (AnnexureoP-21)opassedobyotheoCourtoofotheoSessionsoJudge,oHisar, CRMoM-36189-2023o 2oooo whereby,otheopetitionersohaveobeenosummonedoandoalloconsequential proceedingsoarisingotherefrom.

¶2Learned o senior o counsel o vehemently o argued o that o the petitionersoareotheoHaryanaoCiviloServiceso(HCS)oOfficers,owhoowere selectedoinotheoyearo2004,oofferedoappointmentoinotheoyearo2016oin LPAoNo.o1168oofo2015oandoareoworkingoonotheirorespectiveopostsosince then.oInofact,otheoHaryanaoPublicoServiceoCommissiono(hereinafteroto be o referred o as o'the o HPSC') o issued oAdvertisement o No. o 12 o on

24.01.2004oandoinvitedoapplicationsofororecruitmentotooHaryanaoCivil Serviceso(ExecutiveoBranch)oandotheoalliedoservicesobyowayoofodirect recruitment.oAfteroholdingotheoselectionoprocess,oaofinalolistoofo102 candidateso(whichoincludedotheopetitioners)owasorecommendedofor appointment o to o HCS o (Executive o Branch) o and o allied o services. However,otheoformaloappointmentoordersoofotheopetitionersocouldonot beoissuedotootheopetitionersodueotootheoonogoingoelectionoprocessoinothe StateoofoHaryana.oEvenoafteroconclusionoofotheoelectionoprocess,ono stepsowereotakenobyotheoStateoGovernmentotooissueotheoappointment lettersotootheopetitioners.oUltimately,otheopetitionersoandootherosimilarly situatedoselectedocandidatesoapproachedothisoCourtobyowayoofoCWP 3768oofo2005oandoCWPo5437oofo2005oandoprayedoforoissuanceoof directionsotootheoStateoofoHaryanaotooissueoappointmentolettersotoothe petitioners o and o others. o However, o the o said o writ o petitions o were ultimatelyoadjournedosineodieoinoviewoofotheostatementogivenobyothe CRMoM-36189-2023o 3oooo respondent-StateothatotheyohadoconstitutedoaoCommitteeotooconductoa vigilanceoenquiryoinotheoentireoselectionoprocess.oAtothisostate,otheoFIR No.o20odatedo18.10.2005ounderoSectiono13(1)(D)oreadowithoSection 13(2)oofotheoPCoActoandoSectionso420,o467,o468,o471oando120-Boof IPC,oAntioCorruptionoBureau,oHisarowasoalsooregisteredotoolookointo theoallegationsoofofavoritismoandocorruptionobyotheoChairmanoand MembersoofotheoHPSCoinovariousoselectionsofromotheoyearo2001oto 2004.oThereafter,otheorespondentoissuedoanoorderodatedo13.05.2005 underoRuleo3oofotheoPunjaboCiviloServiceo(ExecutiveoBranch)oRules videowhichotheototalocadreostrengthoofoHCSo(ExecutiveoBranch)owas reducedofromo300otoo230oposts.oAgainotheopetitionersoandoother selectedopersonsoapproachedothisoCourtobyowayoofocivilowritopetitions, challengingotheoorderodatedo13.05.2005,owhereby,otheocadreostrength wasoreducedoandoaofurtheroprayerowasomadeotooappointotheopetitioners tooHCSo(ExecutiveoBranch)oandoalliedoservices.oHowever,otheobunch ofotheoaforesaidopetitionsowasodismissedoono12.10.2006.oTheojudgment dated o 12.10.2006 o passed o by o this o Court o was o challenged o by o the petitionersoandoothersobyowayoofoSLPo(Civil)oNo.o21418oofo2006). However,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoalsoodismissedotheoSLPovide judgmentodatedo11.02.2007.oLearnedoseniorocounseloalsooreferredoto theoparagraphsonumberso53,o63,o67oando68oofotheosaidojudgment (AnnexureoP-3)opassedobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourt,owherein,othe Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtomadeotheofollowingoobservations:- CRMoM-36189-2023o 1oooo "..... but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that there existed a cloud which is required to be cleared. Unsuccessful candidates have leveled serious allegations against the members of the Commission. They may or may not be correct. The Vigilance Bureau has initiated an enquiry into the whole matter. Such an enquiry should, in our considered opinion, be allowed to be continued unless the State in terms of the report made by the Vigilance Bureau and upon making an enquiry of its own satisfies that the selection process was not tainted. Its disinclination to make an appointment till then cannot be found fault with....." (para 53). "..... if the State is right in its contention that the selection process being in cloud, no appointment can be made, the court by invoking any doctrine cannot ask the State to do so unless it arrives of a positive and definite finding that the State's stand is fraught with arbitrariness. We do not find any arbitrariness in its act...." (Para 63) ".... We although as at present advised do not intend to make any observations in regard to the allegations and counter,allegations made by the Commission and State against each other, we only hope and trust that a constitutional authority like the Commission should neither withhold any document nor refuse to cooperate with the State Vigilance Bureau in the matter of conduct of an enquiry." (Para 67) "If the statement made by the Commission are correct, they have nothing to hide. It would be in the interest of all concerned including the appellants herein to see that authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 5oooo theoenquiryoshouldobeocompletedoatoanyoearlyodate." (Parao67) "WeodirectotheoStateoGovernmentotootakeoallostepsoinothis behalf.oWeowouldoalsoorequestotheoCommissionotoorender allocooperationotootheoauthoritiesoofotheoStateoVigilance Bureau"o(Parao68)o

¶3Learnedoseniorocounselofurtherosubmittedothatofromoa perusaloofotheoparaso67oando68oofotheojudgments,oitowasoobservedoby theoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtothatotheovigilanceoenquiryomightobe completedoatoanoearlyodateobyotheoStateoGovernment.oHowever,oinstead ofocompletingotheovigilanceoenquiry,oasoobservedobyotheoHon'ble SupremeoCourt,otheorespondent-Stateoissuedoaofreshoadvertisementoon

04.01.2009otoofilloupotheofreshoposts,owhichoincludedotheopostsoon whichotheopetitionersowereoalsoorecommendedoforoappointmentofrom theopreviousorecruitment.oTheopetitionersoandoothersoagainofiledoCWP 2130 o of o 2009 o before o this o Court o with o a o prayer o to o direct respondent/Stateoforoearlyocompletionoofovigilanceoenquiryoandoalso prayedoforostayoonotheoselectionoprocessoquaotheopostsoonowhichothe earlieroselectedocandidates,oi.e.,otheopetitionersowereotoobeoappointed. TheosaidowritopetitionowasoultimatelyodisposedooffobyothisoCourtovide orderodatedo20.08.2010o(AnnexureoP-5).oHowever,owhileodisposingooff theowritopetition,othisoCourtohasomadeotheofollowingoobservations:- TheoPrayeromadeobyotheopetitionersofororestrainingothe respondentsofromofillingoupotheopostowasonegatedobyothis CRMoM-36189-2023o 6oooo Court vide its order dated 21.4.2009 by observing as under:, "In my opinion no case has been made out for stalling the selection. It must be kept in mind that in a controversy regarding a public appointment it is not only the interests of the candidates or the employer but also the interests of the public which have to be kept in mind. It is not in public interest that essential public posts should be kept vacant while the question regarding a particular selection is still under probe. Having said that it also cannot be gainsaid that in case ultimately the applicants are exonerated, their non,appointment would cause them great prejudice. However, I have no doubt in mind that in that eventuality this Court or the Government would make some arrangement to vindicate the interests of such applicants who are exonerated in the case." The only prayer, thus, which would now survive in the petition is for completing the vigilance enquiry. Though the State had initially not come up with any firm stand in this regard but ultimately when directed to have instructions, an affidavit has been filed that the enquiry would be completed within a period of six months. That being the position, nothing would survive in the petition. The counsel for the petitioners still insisted on making submission in regard to the right of the petitioners for appointment to the posts, for which they were selected. Needless to observe that the selection being under clout, the appointment would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. It may also need a notice that the petitioners authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 2oooo had earlier approached the Supreme Court and the action of the State in directing enquiry to go into the appointment was upheld. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed that the vigilance enquiry initiated to go into the whole matter be allowed to continue and the disinclination on the part of the State to make appointment was not found with any fault. The Supreme Court has also observed that the petitioners may take recourse to other remedies available to them under law if there was any subsequent event, while disposing of the application seeking clarification of the order. Obviously, any change in position can possibly be after conclusion of Vigilance enquiry. Nothing, thus, would survive in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The rights of the petitioners to have their remedy in case selection is not found with fault during the vigilance enquiry has already been protected while rejecting the prayer for interim order". +. =earned o senior o ounsel o further o ar$ued o that o despite spe ifi oordersoandotheostandota&eno7yotheoStateothatotheyo!ould on ludeotheoen.uiryo!ithino18o<onths,otheoStateo(overn<entodidonot o<pleteotheoen.uiry.o/eelin$oa$$rieved,otheopetitionersohadofiled #>#Po)--+oofo-1))o7eforeothiso#ourtoandothiso#ourtodire tedothe respondentotoo on ludeotheoinvesti$ationo!ithinoaoperiodoofo13 <onthsovideoorderodatedo1).18.-1))o4Anne;ureoP:85osoothatone essary ordersoinorespe toofotheoappoint<entoofotheopetitionerso<ayo7eopassed, inoa ordan eo!ithola!.otinotheo<eanti<e,ooneoofotheosu essful authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 8oooo candidatesomovedoanoapplicationounderotheoRightotooInformationoAct seekingotheostatusoofotheoenquiry.oInoresponseotootheoapplication,oa copyoofotheofinaloreportorecordedobyotheoDirector,oVigilance,owhich wasoforwardedotootheoChiefoSecretary,oVigilanceoBureauoofothe Governmentowasosupplied.oInotheosaidoreport,oitowasomentionedothat theoenquiryoproceedingsoinowhichotheoselectionoofo2004obatchoin pursuanceotooFIRoNo.o20oofo2005ohadobeenoconcludedoandoitowas pointed o out o that o out o of o total o 102 o selected o candidates, o certain irregularitiesoregardingocuttingoandousingoofodifferentoinksoorocertain candidatesohadobeenogivenomarksoinocertainomanneroinocasesoofo64 candidatesowereofound.oHowever,o38ocandidates,owhichoincludedothe petitionersowereogivenoaocleanochitobyotheoDirectoroofoStateoVigilance Bureau,oHaryanaoinohisoreportso(AnnexuresoP-7oandoP-8),owhichowere receivedoasoanoinformationounderotheoRTIoAct.oThus,oitowasoclearothat noodiscrepancyowasofoundoinotheoanswerosheetsoofotheopresent petitionersoandotheoselectionoofotheopetitionersowasountainted.oInospite ofotheofactothatonootaintowasofoundoinorecordoofotheoselectionoofothe petitioners,otheorespondent-Stateoagainodidonotoofferoappointmentoto theopetitioners,odespiteorepeatedorepresentationsotootheoGovernment officials.

¶5Again,owhenotheoselectionowasonotoofferedotootheonon taintedocandidates,osomeoofotheoselectedocandidatesoapproachedothis CourtobyowayoofoCWPoNo.o108oofo2012otitledoaso����������������� CRMoM-36189-2023o 9oooo ��������������������������������osee&in$odire tionsoa$ainstotheoState foroissuan eoofoappoint<entotoothe<,o7ein$onon:taintedo andidatesoand 7ein$o learedo7yotheo'ire toroofoStateoVi$ilan eoBureau,oHaryana. Ho!ever, o the o said o 7at h o of o !rit o petitions o !as o dis<issed o vide Bud$<entodatedo-6.12.-1)2o4Anne;ureoP:65opassedo7yothiso#ourt.o*he sele tedo andidatesofiledo=PAo%o.o))8,oofo-1)2o7eforeothiso#ourt a$ainstotheoBud$<ento4Anne;ureoP:65opassedo7yothiso#ourtoandothis #ourtohadopassedotheofollo!in$oorderoono)-.1,.-1)2:: "We have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, appear to prima,facie suggest that irregularities/ illegalities detected by the Vigilance Bureau, vitiate the entire selection process and, therefore, do not entitle the petitioners to urge that as nothing is alleged against them, they should be offered appointment. A perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, pertaining to this very selection reveals that the State of Haryana was required to take an independent decision either by holding an inquiry or based upon the report received from the Vigilance Bureau. A perusal of the record as well as the impugned order reveals that there is no reference to any independent decision taken by the State of Haryana. Thus before proceeding any further in the matter, we call upon the State of Haryana to apprise the Court whether any decision was taken by the authority concerned based upon the inquiry submitted by the Vigilance Bureau or authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 10oooo any other material that the entire selection stands vitiated. At the asking of the Court, Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and prays for time to seek instructions/ file an appropriate short affidavit. A copy of the letters patent be supplied to counsel by the State of Haryana during the course of the day. Adjourned to 10.9.2015. Copy of the order be provided to the State of Haryana under the signatures of the Special Secretary".ooo

¶8=earnedosenioro ounselofurtherosu7<ittedothatoao'ivision Ben hoofothiso#ourto ate$ori allyoas&edotheoStateoofoHaryanaoto appriseotheo#ourtoa7outoanyode ision,o!hi ho!asota&eno7yothe o<petentoauthorityo7asedoonotheoen.uiryoreportosu7<ittedo7yothe Vi$ilan eoBureau.otinopursuan eoofotheoorderodatedo)-.1,.-1)2,othe respondent:Stateoa$aino onstitutedoanotherotindependento#o<<ittee !ithotheoo7Be toofoensurin$othatothereo!asonoofa tualooroille$aloerror andotheo<attero!asoa$ainoe;a<inedo7yoao#o<<itteeoofofollo!in$ threeoseniorooffi ersoofotheoStateoVi$ilan eoBureau::

(i) The Additional Director General, State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula.

(ii) The Inspector General of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula.

(iii) The Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 11oooo

(v)oDeputyoDistrictoAttorney,oStateoVigilanceoBureau, Panchkula".o

¶7Inofact,otheoStateoGovernmentohadodirectedotheoaboveosaid Committeeotoosubmitoaoreportowithinoaoperiodoofooneomonthowith regardotootainted/untaintedoselectedocandidatesoofoHCSo(Executive Branch)oandootheroalliedoservices.oAgain,oIndependentoCommittee examinedotheoentireorecordoincludingotheorecommendationsomadeoby theoStateoVigilanceoBureauoandosegregatedotheotaintedocandidatesofrom non-tainted o candidates o and o prepared o a o detailed o report o dated

29.01.2016o(AnnexureoP-10).oItowasocategoricallyostatedothato38 candidatesodidonotohaveoirregularitiesoinotheiroanswerosheetsoandosaid fact o has o been o re-verified o from o the o answer o sheets o regarding irregularitiesoofo38ocandidatesoandodidonotofoundoanyoirregularitiesoin theoanswerosheetsoofo38ocandidates,owhichoincludedotheopresent petitioner.oUltimately,oLPAoNo.o1168oofo2015ocameoupoforohearing beforeothisoCourtoono27.02.2016oandothisoCourtopassedotheofollowing order:- "Theovigilanceobureauothereafterosubmittedoaofreshoreport tootheogovernment.oTheocommitteeoafteroexaminingothe entireorecordoincludingotheorecommendationsomadeobyothe vigilance o bureau, o took o a o conscious o decision o and segregatedotheotaintedofromotheonon-taintedocandidates andoforwardedoitsoreportotootheoGovernment.o CounseloforotheoStateoofoHaryanaosubmitsothatotheoState hasoacceptedotheoreportoandopassedoanoorderodated CRMoM-36189-2023o 12oooo

26.02.2016 and for that purpose refers to a letter received from the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana addressed to the Advocate General, Haryana, which reads as follows: , "Kindly refer to the order dated 12.08.2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court in the said case vide which the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to call upon the respondent State of Haryana to apprise the Court whether any decision was taken by the authority concerned based upon the inquiry submitted by the State Vigilance Bureau or any other material that the entire selection stands vitiated. In this regard it is submitted that the matter has been got examined by the Government. Keeping in view the inquiry report submitted by the State Vigilance Bureau after the consideration of matter 'in,principle' decision has been taken to offer appointment to the candidates who found innocent in this report. It is also submitted that since the vacancies for the year 2004 have already been withdrawn as such they cannot be given appointment against these vacancies. These candidates can be considered against the present vacancies as fresh candidates. It is also made clear that those accepting the offer of appointment would not be entitled to backwages or any other benefits, what so ever. The decision of the competent authority of offering appointment is also subject to the revised recommendation of Haryana Public Service Commission for the HCS (Ex. Br.) & Other Allied Services Examination,2004. It is therefore, authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 13oooo requested o to o apprise o the o Hon'ble o High o Court accordingly."o Theoletteroisotakenoonorecord.o CounseloforotheoStateoofoHaryanaostatesothatoheohas instructionsotoomakeoaopositiveostatementothatoinoviewoof theodecisionotakenobyotheoGovernmentoofoHaryana,oduly reflectedoinoletterodatedo26.02.2016,ocandidatesowhoohave been o found o innocent o in o theo report o shall o be o offered appointment o in o terms o of o the o decision o taken o by o the governmentobutotheoimpugnedoorderomayoonlyobeoset asideoasoregardsotheonon-taintedocandidates".o

¶8Learnedoseniorocounselofurtherosubmittedothatoevenothe respondent-StateohadoadmittedobeforeothisoCourtoonotheobasisoofothe report o of o the o Independent o Committee o dated o 29.01.2016 (AnnexureoP-10)othatothereowasonooirregularityoinotheoselectionoprocess ofotheopresentopetitioners.oThereafter,otheopetitionersowereooffered appointmentobyotheorespondent-Stateoinocomplianceoofotheodecision renderedoinoLPAo1168oofo2015oandotheosaidoorderohasoattainedofinality. Even,oaoSLPowasofiledoagainstotheoorderodatedo27.02.2016opassedoby thisoCourtoinoLPAoNo.o1168oofo2015,ohowever,otheosameowas dismissedoasowithdrawnovideoorderodatedo05.04.2016o(AnnexureoP-13) passedobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourt.ooLearnedoseniorocounseloalso highlightedotheoprofileoofotheopetitionersoandosubmittedothatoallothe petitionersohadobrilliantoacademicorecordoandohadoclearedovarious CRMoM-36189-2023o 14oooo competitive o exams o conducted o by o various o selection boards/commissions.

¶9Learnedoseniorocounselofurtheroarguedothatoafteroserving mandatoryoprobationoperiod,otheoservicesoofotheopetitionersowere confirmedobyotheorespondent.oHowever,oagainoono27.11.2021,othe showocauseonoticesowereoservedoonotheopetitioners,oseekingotheoreply asotoowhyotheiroservicesomayonotobeoterminated/dispensedowith.oIn fact,otheoshowocauseonoticesorevealedothatoaoCWPo12378oofo2017otitled aso�������������������������������������������������andoother connectedopetitions� wasopendingobeforeothisoCourtoandotheoDSP, VigilanceoBureauohadofiledoanoaffidavitobeforeothisoCourtopointingoout someodiscrepanciesoinotheoanswerosheetsoofotheoselected/untainted candidatesoandoonotheobasisoofothat,otheoStateoGovernmentohadotakenoa decision,owhicholedotootheoissuanceoofotheoshowocauseonoticesotoothe petitioners.oEven,otheopetitionersowereonotopartyoinotheosaidoCWP 12378oofo2017 oandootheroconnectedopetitions.oStill ofurther,othe petitionersohadoalreadyobeenoofferedoappointmentoinoLPAoNo.o1168oof 2015,owhichohadoalreadyoattainedofinalityouptootheoHon'bleoSupreme Court.

¶10Learnedoseniorocounselofurtherosubmittedothatoagainstothe issuanceoofoshowocauseonoticesodatedo27.11.2021,otheopetitionersohad filedodifferentowritopetitionsobeforeothisoCourtoandothisoCourtohad stayedofurtheroproceedingsoinopursuanceotooshowocauseonoticesoon CRMoM-36189-2023o 15oooo

09.12.2021.oHowever,oinotheomeantime,ocontraryotootheoearlieroreports (AnnexuresoP-8oandoP-10),opreparedobyoveryosenioroofficersoofoState VigilanceoBureau,oIndependentoCommittee,oStateoVigilanceoBureau, theorespondent-StateofiledoaofinaloreportounderoSectiono173oCr.P.C.oin theoCourtoofoSessionsoJudge,oHisaroandotheopetitionersowereoalso arrayedoasoaccusedoalongwithomembersoofoHPSE,oexaminersoandofew others.oItowasostatedothatosomeodiscrepanciesowereofoundoinotheoanswer sheetsoofotheopresentopetitioners.oOnotheobasisoofotheochallan,ovide orderodatedo05.07.2023o(AnnexureoP-21),otheoCourtoofoSessionsoJudge, Hisar,osummonedotheopetitionersotooappearoinotheoCourtoono10.08.2023. Learnedoseniorocounselofurtherosubmittedothatoagainstotheoimpugned showocauseonoticesodatedo27.11.2021,otheopetitionerohadofiledodifferent writopetitionsoincludingoCWPoNo.o24966oofo2021obeforeothisoCourt andovideoorderodatedo09.12.2021,othisoCourtohadostayedofurther proceedings o in o pursuanceo ofo theo show o causeo notices.oTheo writ petitionsofinallyocameoupoforohearingobeforeothisoCourtoono16.08.2023 andothisoCourtoclearlyoheldothatoonceotheoGovernmentohadofoundothe petitionersotoobeountainted,otheoGovernmentocouldonotobeoallowedoto reopenotheoissueoasotoodecideotheoquestionowhetheroanyocandidate,owho hasoalreadyobeenodeclaredoasountainted,ohisostatusoisoliableotoobe reviewed.oStillofurther,otheoproceedingsohaveobeenoreopenedoonlyoon theobasisoofoanoaffidavitogivenobyoanoofficeroofotheorankoofoDSP, VigilanceoBureau,owhichowasoimpermissibleoinolaw.oTheoaffidavitoof CRMoM-36189-2023o 16oooo anoofficerooforankoofoDSPocannotobeopermittedotoooverrideotheotwo reports o of o Vigilance o Bureau, o one o given o by o the o Director, o State VigilanceoBureauoinotheoyearo2011oandoanotherogivenobyotheoHigh LeveloCommitteeoformedobyotheoGovernmentoinotheoyearo2016.oStill further,osuchoaosubordinateoofficerocouldonotobeopermittedotootakeoa contraryoviewoandotheoaffidavitowasowronglyofiledoinoCWPo7888oof 2017,o in o which, o the o petitioners o were o not o even o the o parties. Consequently,otheoargumentoraisedobyotheoStateotootermotheoselections ofotheopetitionersoasotaintedowasorejectedobyothisoCourt.oLearnedosenior counselofurtheroarguedothatotheorespondent-Stateohadofiledoaoreport underoSectiono173oCr.P.C.,oinotheoCourtoofoSessionsoJudge,oHisaroand theopetitionersowereoalsooarrayedoasoaccusedoalongwithomembersoof theoHPSE,oexaminersoandofewootheroofficials.oItowasowronglyostated thatosomeodiscrepanciesowereofoundoinotheoanswerosheetsoofothe presentopetitioners,owhichohadoalreadyobeenoexaminedobyotheosenior officersoofotheoVigilanceoBureauoandotheopetitionersowereofoundotoobe non-taintedoandoclean.oOnotheobasisoofotheochallan,ovideoorderodated

05.07.2023o(AnnexureoP-21),otheoCourtoofoSessionsoJudge,oHisar summonedotheopetitionersotooappearoinotheoCourtoono10.08.2023.o

¶11Onotheootherohand,olearnedoStateocounselovehemently opposed o the o submissions o made o by o the o learned o counsel o for o the petitioners o by o submitting o that o the o petitioners o are o the o main beneficiariesoofotheofabrication,omanipulationoandowrongodoingsoinothe CRMoM-36189-2023o 17oooo selectionoprocessoofotheoHCSo(ExecutiveoBranch)oandootheroAllied Serviceso Examination o 2004, o carried o out o by o theo then oChairman, MembersoandoSecretaryoofotheoHPSEoalongwithotheoexaminersoofoall differentosubjects.oSheofurtheroarguedothatotheopetitionersowereonever givenoanyocleanochitoinotheoreportodatedo09.11.2011o(AnnexureoP-8) andotheoreportodatedo29.01.2016o(AnnexureoP-10).oInofact,otheoanswer sheetsoofo38ocandidatesowereocheckedoproperlyobyotheoCommitteeoand lateroonootheromanipulationsoinotheoawardedomarksoinotheointerviewoas welloasotakingotheoanswerosheetsotootheoexaminersobyotheoSecretary HPSEoinopersonoclearlyohighlightedotheowrongodoings.oEven,othe challanohasobeenopreferredoagainstotheothenoSecretaryoofotheoHPSE, HardeepoSinghoalso.oInofact,otheoanswerosheetsoofotheopetitionersowere again o inspected o thoroughly o and o it o was o found o that o there o was overwriting o and o increasing o of o marks o in o the o answer o sheets. Accordingly,oanoaffidavitodatedo05.03.2019owasosubmittedoinoaowrit petitionopendingobeforeothisoCourtoandotheodiscrepanciesoinotheoanswer sheetsoofotheopetitionersowereoalsoohighlighted.oSheofurtherocontended that o after o detailed o investigation, o the o challan o has o already o been presentedobeforeotheocompetentoCourtoandotheopetitionersohaveobeen summoned.oThus,otheopetitionersohadotheoefficaciousoremedyooforaising allotheirocontentionsobeforeotheotrialoCourtoatoanoappropriateostageoand theopetitionodeservesotoobeodismissedobyothisoCourt.o CRMoM-36189-2023o 18oooo

¶12Iohaveoheardotheorivalocontentionsoraisedobyotheolearned counseloforotheopartiesoandoperusedotheorecord:-

(a) o Declaration o of o petitioners o as o non-tainted candidates,ovideodetailedoreportsopreparedobyothe Director,oVigilanceoBureau,oHaryanao(AnnexureoP-8) and o a o High o Level o Committee o of o the o State Government, o headed o by o the o Additional o Director General, o State o Vigilance o Bureau, o Panchkula (Annexure o P-10), o after o o registration o of o the o FIR (AnnexureoP-2):- TheoFIRoinotheopresentocaseowasoregisteredobyotheoState Vigilance o Bureau, o Haryana o (now o Anti o Corruption Bureau)o and o theo investigation o was o started o normally. Thereafter,owhileotakingoupoCWPo2130oofo2009,othis Courtohadoobservedoinotheoorderodatedo21.04.2009othat theoinquiryoinotheopresentocaseowouldobeocompleted withinoaoperiodoofo06omonths.oThereafter,odespiteoorders ofothisoCourtoandotheostandotakenobyotheoStateothatothey wouldoconcludeotheoinvestigationowithino06omonths,othe StateoGovernmentodidonotocompleteotheoinvestigation. SomeoofotheocandidatesofiledoCOCPoNo.o1224oofo2011 andothisoCourtoagainodirectedotheorespondent-Stateoto concludeotheoinvestigationowithinoaoperiodoofo03omonths. In o spite o of o that, o investigation o was o not o completed. However,ooneoofotheosuccessfulocandidateomovedoan applicationounderotheoRightotooInformationoAct,oseeking CRMoM-36189-2023o 19oooo theostatusoofoinvestigationoandoitowasofoundothato38 candidates,owhichoincludedotheopetitioners,owereosuch, whoohadobeenogivenocleanochitobyotheoDirector,oState VigilanceoBureau.oTheoreportopreparedobyotheoState VigilanceoBureau,owhichowasoforwardedotootheoChief Secretary, o Vigilance o Department, o Government o of Haryana,oChandigarhoono09.11.2011ohasobeenoannexedoas annexureoP-8oandoitowasoclearlyomentionedothatono discrepancyowasofoundoduringotheoinspectionoofoanswer sheets o of o the o present o petitioners o and o few o other candidates.oItorequiresomentionothatotheosaidoreport,owhich wasopreparedobyotheoHeadoofoStateoVigilanceoBureau, clearlyospelledothatonoodiscrepancyohadobeenofoundoinothe answerosheetsoofotheopetitionersoandothereowasonootaintoso faroasotheoselectionoofotheopetitionersowasoconcerned. Thereafter,otheoselectedocandidatesofiledoLPAo1168oof 2015otitledoaso"ApurvoandoothersoVs.oStateoofoHaryana andoothers" obeforeothisoCourtoandovideoorderodated

12.08.2015,othisoCourtohadocalledouponotheoStateoof HaryanaotooappriseotheoCourtoasotoowhetheroanyodecision wasotakenobyotheoauthorityoconcernedobasedouponothe inquiryoreportosubmittedobyotheoVigilanceoBureauooroany otheromaterialothatotheoentireoselectionostoodovitiated.oIn CRMoM-36189-2023o 20oooo theocomplianceoofotheoorderodatedo12.08.2015opassedoby thisoCourt,otheoStateoconstitutedoanotheroIndependent Committeeowithotheosoleoobjectoofoensuringothatothere wasonoofactualooroillegaloerroroandotheomatterowasoagain examinedobyotheoVigilanceoBureau.oTheosaidoIndependent CommitteeoofotheoStateoGovernmentoagainocomprisedoof theohighestoofficersoofotheoStateowhichoincludedo(i)oThe AdditionaloDirectoroGeneral,oStateoVigilanceoBureau, Panchkula, o(ii)oTheoInspectoroGeneraloofoPolice,oState VigilanceoBureau,oPanchkula,o(iii)oTheoSuperintendentoof Police,oStateoVigilanceoBureau,oHisaroand o(iv)oDeputy DistrictoAttorney,oStateoVigilanceoBureau,oPanchkula. TheoIndependentoCommitteeoofotheoStateoGovernment againoexaminedotheoentireorecord,oinocomplianceoofothe ordersopassedobyothisoCourtoandoforwardedoaoreport (AnnexureoP-10)otootheoStateoGovernmentoandoclearly stated o that o the o present o petitioners o were o untainted candidatesoandotheoStateoGovernmentotootakeoaodecision tooofferoappointmentsotootheopetitioners.oThus,oafterothe registrationoofotheoFIR,otheomatterowasoexaminedotwice byotheohighestoofficersoofotheoStateoVigilanceoBureau, whoohadopreparedodetailedoreportsotwice,oi.e.,o(Annexure P-8oandoP10)orespectively,owhereby,oaocleanochitowas CRMoM-36189-2023o 21oooo givenotootheopetitionersobeforeothisoCourtoandotheyowere declaredoasonon-taintedocandidates,oafteroexaminingotheir answerosheets.o

(b)o oCategoricostandotakenobeforeothisoCourtovide reportso(AnnexuresoP-8oandoP-10)opreparedobyothe senioromostoofficersoofotheoStateoVigilanceoBureauoof theoStateoGovernment,oandotheoofferoofoappointment tootheopetitioners:- Theotwooreports,oi.e.,oAnnexureoP-8opreparedobyothe DirectoroofoStateoVigilanceoBureauoandoAnnexureoP-10 preparedobyoIndependentoCommitteeoheadedobyothe AdditionaloDirectoroGeneral,oStateoVigilanceoBureau, Panchkula,owereoconsideredobyotheoStateoGovernment. TheoChiefoSecretary,oGovernmentoofoHaryanaoforwarded aoletterodatedo26.02.2016o(AnnexureoP-11)otootheolearned AdvocateoGeneral,oHaryanaoandoitowasosubmittedothat theomatterohasobeenogotoexaminedobyotheoGovernment, keepingoinoviewotheoinquiryoreportosubmittedobyothe StateoVigilanceoBureauoandoafteroconsiderationoofothe matter,o"inoprinciple"odecisionohadobeenotakenotoooffer appointmentotootheocandidates,owhoowereofoundoinnocent inotheoreport.oItowasorequestedothatothisoCourtomayobe apprised o accordingly. o This o clearly o shows o that o the Governmentohadoalreadyoconsciouslyodecidedotooproceed onotheobasisoofotheoreporto(AnnexureoP-10)o oandothe CRMoM-36189-2023o 22oooo petitionersowereoconsideredoasonon-taintedocandidates andotheoStateoGovernmentohadoconveyedotoothisoCourt thatobeingonon-taintedocandidates,otheyocouldobeooffered selections o by o this o Court. o Thus, o when o the o State Government o had o earlier o decided o and o declared o the petitioners o as o non-tainted o candidates, o the respondent-Stateocannotobeoallowedotootakeoaosomersault andoorderotheoprosecutionoofotheopetitioners,owhichois contraryotootheotwooreportsosubmittedobyotheosenioromost officersoofotheoStateoVigilanceoBureau.o

(c)oAppointmentovideoorderodatedo27.02.2016,opassed byoaoDivisionoBenchoofothisoCourtoinoLPAoNo.o1168oof 2015 o aftero taking o into o consideration o the o reports (AnnexuresoP-8oandoP-10)oandotheolettero(Annexure P-11). o SLPo preferred o and o withdrawno vide o order datedo05.04.2016o(AnnexureoP-13)ofromotheoHon'ble SupremeoCourt:- After o the o report o (Annexure o P-10) o exonerating o the petitionersowasopreparedobyoanoIndependentoCommittee, headed o by o the o Additional o Director o General, o State Vigilance o Bureau, o Haryana, o the o matter o was o placed beforeothisoCourtoandotheolearnedoStateocounselomadeoa statementobeforeoaoDivisionoBenchoofothisoCourtothatoa decisionohasobeenotakenobyotheoStateoGovernment,ovide letter o dated o 26.02.2016 o (Annexure o P-11) o and o the candidates,owhoohadobeenofoundountaintedoinotheoreport CRMoM-36189-2023o 23oooo wouldobeoofferedoappointmentoinotermsoofotheodecision takenobyotheogovernment.oConsequently,ovideoorder datedo27.02.2016,ooaoDivisionoBenchoofothisoCourtohad partlyoallowedotheoLPAofiledobyotheocandidatesoandothe petitionersowereoofferedoselectionoinocomplianceoofothe orderodatedo27.02.2016opassedobyothisoCourtoinotheosaid LPA.oItorequiresomentionothatotheoSLPo(CCoNo.o6181oof 2016)owasofiledobeforeotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourt, however,otheosameowasodismissedoasowithdrawnoon

05.04.2016.oThus,otheodecisionoofotheoDivisionoBenchoof thisoCourt,owhereby,otheopetitionersowereodeclaredoas innocentoandowereoofferedoappointmentobyotheoState Government,ohadoattainedofinalityoandoadmittedly,othe saidodecisionoofothisoCourtohasonotobeenoset-asideosoofar. Thus,owhenotheoreportsoofotheoIndependentoCommitteeoof theoStateoVigilanceoBureauo(AnnexuresoP-10oandoP-11) haveobeenoacceptedobyothisoCourtoandotheoselectionohas alreadyobeenoofferedoinoLPAo1168oofo2015otitledoas "ApurvoandoothersoVs.oStateoofoHaryanaoandoothers", anyoprosecutionobasedoonotheoreportoofoaoDSPolevel officerocannotobeoallowedotoocontinueoandotheosameois grossomisuseoofotheoprocessoofolaw.o CRMoM-36189-2023o 24oooo Even,otheochallanoisobasedoonotheosameosetoofoallegations, which o were o subject o matter o of o enquiry, o by o the Independent o Committee o headed o by o the o Additional DirectoroGeneral,oStateoVigilanceoBureau,oHaryanaoand theochallanohasobeenowronglyopresentedoagainstothe petitioners.o

(d) No o fresh o material/evidence o against o the petitionersotooorderoprosecution,oexceptoanoaffidavit datedo06.03.2019,ofiledobyoaoDSPorankoofficerobefore thisoCourt,owhichohasoalreadyobeenorejectedobyothis Courtovideoorderodatedo16.08.2023oinoCWPoNo.o24966 ofo2021:- Asoobservedoabove,otwooreportso(AnnexuresoP-8oand P-10)opreparedobyotheoofficialoofotheorankoofoDirector, State o Vigilance o Bureau o and o the oAdditional o Director General,oStateoVigilanceoBureau,oHaryanaowereoprepared andoacceptedobyothisoCourt.oHowever,oanoaffidavitodated

06.03.2019opreparedobyoanoofficeroofotheorankoofoDSP wasofiledoinoCWPoNo.o7888oofo2017,oinowhich,othe petitionersowereonotoevenoparties.oFirstoofoall,otheoaffidavit datedo06.03.2019,owhichowasofiledobyoanoofficialoofothe rankoofoDSP,oStateoVigilanceoBureau,ocouldonotooverride theotwoodetailedoreportso(AnexuresoP-8oandoP-10),owhich wereopreparedobyotheosenioromostoofficersoofoState VigilanceoBureauoasowelloasotheoIndependentoCommittee CRMoM-36189-2023o 2'oooo of o the o State o (overn<ent o headed o 7y o the oAdditional 'ire toro(eneral,olevelooffi er.o#onse.uently,otheosaid affidavit,o!hi hoisotheo<aino7asisoofoprose utionono!, !aso onsideredo7yothiso#ourtoino#APo-+688oofo-1-) titledoas oCI$8e6oJeeto*"$=/oa$8oot/e6#o<#&o*tateoo Ha6;a$aoa$8oot/e6#Boa$8o!o$$e!te8oD6"to7et"t"o$# andothiso#ourtohadoreBe tedotheosaidoaffidavitoandohad adverselyo o<<entedoa$ainstohi<.oAhileoreBe tin$othe saidoaffidavit,othiso#ourtohadoo7servedoasounder::

¶47A bare perusal of the above order would show that the order in question was passed by the Coordinate Bench only to find out the veracity behind the allegations being alleged by the candidates, who were being treated as tainted candidates. A bare perusal of the order would show that there is no direction given to the State to re,open the issue so as to decide the question whether, any candidate, who has already been declared untainted, his/her status is liable to be reviewed. By wrongly interpreting the order dated 17.12.2018 by which, the Coordinate Bench of this Court only directed the respondent,State to place on record certain facts so as to adjudicate the claim of certain tainted candidates, by misinterpreting the same, the respondent,State re,opened the entire issue of selection, which is not at all permissible, hence, the reason being given by the respondent,State that there was a permission given by the Co,ordinate Bench to re,open the issue vide order dated 17.12.2018, is totally incorrect and cannot be accepted.

¶48Further, learned State counsel submits that keeping in view the material, which has come on record after appointment of the petitioners in the form of the report of DSP of the Vigilance Bureau, the Government needs to authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 26oooo take action. It may be noticed that no such fresh report of any officer of Vigilance Bureau has been brought on record by the respondents. Only an affidavit given by an officer of the rank of DSP of Vigilance Bureau is being relied upon to hold that as per the fresh view of the Vigilance Bureau not only 64 candidates are tainted but even majority of the earlier candidates appointed being untainted are also now tainted. The question, which arises for consideration is whether affidavit of an officer of a rank of DSP will override two reports of the Vigilance Bureau, one given by the Director in the year 2011 and other given by a Committee formed by the Government in the year 2016. It may be noticed that once a report on the basis of same record has been given by an officer highest in rank in the Vigilance Department, said report cannot be overridden by an officer, who is subordinate, by taking a contradictory view especially when the record remains the same on the basis of which the reports have been given by the Vigilance Department and the affidavit has been filed by a DSP rank officer in CWP No. 7888 of 2017.

¶49That at this stage, the learned State counsel has raised an argument that there is a change in the circumstances as compare to what existed at the time when the selection of the petitioners was termed as untainted. Learned State counsel submits that keeping in view the fact that the selection process is a subject matter of criminal proceedings, charges have been framed against the petitioners, which fact is good enough to take a decision contrary to the initial decision qua the selection of the petitioners being termed as untainted. On being asked, as to whether, the charges in the criminal proceedings have been framed against all the candidates, who were initially termed as untainted and appointed thereafter, the learned State counsel submits that charges have been framed only against three persons and not all the petitioners. That being so, the argument raised that there is a change in the circumstances, which permits the State Government to issue show cause notices to the authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 22oooo petitioners so as to term their selection as tainted is incorrect and cannot be accepted.

¶50Even otherwise, as per the settled principle of law, merely the framing of the charges in a criminal proceeding does not mean that the accused is guilty of the allegations/charges being alleged against him/her. It is only in case, an employee is convicted in a criminal case, which conviction reflects upon the moral of the said employee, action can be taken at that stage. Hence, the framing of a charge against any employee will not give entitlement to the respondents to treat that the allegations stand substantiated against the said employee so as to give jurisdiction to the State to take action. Hence, in the present case, the argument being pressed that the charges have been framed against three of the petitioners in the criminal case will give jurisdiction to the State to term the selection of all the petitioners as tainted, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected".o *hus,ovideotheoa7oveoreferredoorderodatedo)8.1,.-1-3 passedoino#APo-+688oofo-1-)otitledoasoCI$8e6oJeeto*"$=/ a$8oot/e6#o<#&o*tateoo oHa6;a$aoa$8oot/e6#Boa$8 !o$$e!te8oD6"to7et"t"o$#-othiso#ourtohasonotoper<ittedothe Stateo(overn<entotooreopenotheoentireoissueo!ithore$ardoto sele tionoandoappoint<entoofotheopresentopetitionersoand haso learlyoreBe tedotheoreport,oonotheo7asisoofo!hi h,othe petitionersoareosou$htotoo7eoprose utedoatothiso7elated sta$e.o?venoother!ise,otheo har$e,o!hi hoisono!osou$htoto 7eoesta7lishedoa$ainstotheopresentopetitionerso!asosu7Be t <atteroofoearlieroinvesti$ationoreportsoandotheopetitioners !ereo learlyoe;onerated.oHo!ever,oafteroaoperiodoofoa7out authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 28oooo 18oyears,otheofinaloreportoofoinvestigationounderoSection 173oCr.P.C.o(AnnexureoP-20)ohasobeenopresentedobefore theoCourt,owhichoviolatesotheoconstitutionalosecurityoofoa speedyoinvestigationoandotrialounderoArticleo21oofothe ConstitutionoofoIndiaoandotheoinitiationoofotheoproceedings inopursuanceoofotheofinaloreporto(AnnexureoP-20)oare nothingobutoanoabuseoofotheoprocessoofotheoCourt.o

(e) Showocauseonoticesoissuedotootheopetitionersoon

27.11.2021oonotheobasisoofoaffidavitodatedo06.03.2019oof DSPorankoofficerosubmittedoinoCWPo7888oofo2017 challengedobyothemoinoCWPo24996oofo2021:- This o Court o clearly o observed o that o the o Department o of Vigilanceohadoconductedotheoscrutinyoofotheoentireorecord ofoselectionoandoitowasoaoconcededopositionoinotheodetailed report o (Annexure o P-10) o submitted o by o the oAdditional DirectoroGeneral,oStateoVigilanceoBureau,oHaryanaothat theopresentopetitionersowereoheldotoobeonototainted.oEven, theoStateoGovernmentohadoacceptedotheorecommendations ofotheoIndependentoCommittee'soreporto(AnnexureoP-10) andotheopetitionersowereoofferedoappointmentobyotheoState Government,obyotreatingotheopetitionersoasonon-tainted. Thus,oonceoaodecisionohasobeenotakenobyotheoGovernment tooappointotheopetitionersoafterodeclaringothemountainted candidates,oandosuchodecisionowasoacceptedobyoaoDivision CRMoM-36189-2023o 29oooo BenchoofothisoCourtoandodecisionowasoalsoomadeopartoof theoCourtoorder,onowotheodecisionoofotheoStateotootreatothe petitionersoasotaintedocandidatesoisobadoinotheoeyesoofolaw. Later,oitowasoonlyowithotheopermissionoofotheoCourt,othe respondentocouldohaveoproceededofurtheroinocaseotheyofelt thatotheyowereoentitledotooreconsiderotheoissueoinotheolight ofoanyonewofact,owhichohadocomeotootheiroknowledge. Hence,otheodecisionotakenobyotheorespondentotootreatothe petitionersoasotaintedowasoaodirectoconflictowithotheoearlier decisionoofotheoGovernment,owhichowasoconsideredoand acceptedobyothisoCourtoinoCOCPo1168oofo2015.oItorequires mentionothatotheojudgmentoofotheoDivisionoBenchois binding o on o the o State oVigilance o Bureau, o as o the o said judgmentohasobeenoupheldouptootheoHon'bleoSupreme CourtoofoIndiaoasoSLPoagainstotheosaidodecisionohasobeen withdrawn.oThus,otheoinvestigation,owhichocontinuedoqua theopetitionersoafterotheodecisionoofoLPAo1168oofo2015owas illegaloandoinvalidoandoratherothisoamountedotoooverriding theoorderopassedobyoaocompetentoCourtoofolawoandosuch proceedingsocannotobeoallowedotoohappenoorocontinue. Thus,otheoprosecutionobasedoonoanyosuchoaffidavitoisoliable toobeoquashedobyothisoCourt.o CRMoM-36189-2023o 30oooo )3. Stillofurther,osi<ilaroissuesoariseoforo onsiderationo7efore the o Hi$h o of o Bo<7ay o in o the o <atter o of o������ � ��� � ����� � �� ��������������������������������������������������������� ��!" #�$�"�%&��'�()*oandoito!asoheldoasofollo!s::

¶7The reason why do we say so is to be found in the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashoo Tewari (supra) wherein, following the decision in the case of P. S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since the standard of proof required for proving a criminal offence is much higher, no criminal case can be allowed to be continued, if it is founded upon same allegations which formed the basis of departmental enquiry proceedings, wherein the delinquent Officer has been exonerated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when upon a given set of facts, an officer is exonerated in departmental enquiry, which requires much lower standard of proof for proving the charge, the criminal proceedings based upon same set of facts must result in the failure as the standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is much higher. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that what is required to be examined in such a case is whether or not the allegations made in departmental enquiry and the allegations in the criminal complaint are similar and identical and it is found that they are similar, the criminal proceedings must not be allowed to be proceeded further or otherwise, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court. authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 31oooo

¶8In the present case, we find that allegations made in the criminal complaint are similar and identical to the allegations made against this applicant in the departmental enquiry proceedings. In other words, the foundation of the criminal complaint made against the present applicant is a same set of allegations which constituted charge no.1 levelled against the applicant in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The departmental enquiry proceedings insofar as charge no.1 is concerned has gone in favour of the applicant and it has, in our view, wiped out the very basis of the criminal complaint filed against this applicant. It then does not appeal to reason to say that while the officer has committed no misconduct on the basis of one set of allegations, the officer has prima, facie committed criminal offence on the basis of the same set of allegations. It is pertinent to mention here that the criminal complaint filed against the applicant by informant,Shri Milind Totare does not contain any more allegations than what formed the basis of charge no.1 levelled against the applicant in the department enquiry proceedings held against him in which the applicant has been exonerated of charge no.1. It then follows that the criminal investigation being carried out against the applicant in its present form cannot continue. But, at the same time, if any other enquiry is made by the Investigating Officer and some new material constituting new offence is discovered, the Enquiry Officer would always be at liberty to book the applicant for the new offence prima,facie found against him. But till that time, the complaint in the present form and the investigation based on it cannot be allowed to authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 32oooo continue or otherwise it would be nothing but abuse of process of law. )+. Stillofurther,otheoHonC7leoSupre<eo#ourtohasoheldoinothe <atteroofo��������������������+�,��������-�������������������� �����������.�/��&#!��������������% 0 0'�1������$��&�����&���� *2*oasofollo!s:: "A reading of this report shows that, at the highest, the appellant may be negligent without any criminal culpability. In fact, the positive finding of the CVC that the appellant appears to be a victim of Muthukumar's plot is of some importance.

¶8A number of judgments have held that the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar², the question before the Court was posed as follows:, (SCC pp. 2,3, para 3) "3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission."

¶9This Court then went on to state: (P.S. Rajya case 2, SCC p. 5, para 17) authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 33oooo "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 higher than the 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 the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it."

¶10This being the case, the Court then held: (P.S. Rajya case2, SCC p. 9, para 23) "23. Even though all these facts including the report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view³ 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 proceedings initiated against the 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 27,3,1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs."

¶11In Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.4, this Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 594,96, paras 26, 29 & 31) authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 31oooo "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 facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will be evident from the following passage of the said judgment: (SCC OnLine Lah: 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 finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or 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 carefully examined."

¶29We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Malhotra that the finding in an adjudication proceeding is not binding in the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication proceedings cannot necessarily be held guilty in a criminal trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence of a little higher degree authenticity of this CRMoM-36189-2023o 35oooo whereasoinoaocriminalocaseotheoentireoburdenotooprove beyondoalloreasonableodoubtoliesoonotheoprosecution.

31.oItoisotriteothatotheostandardoofoprooforequiredoin criminaloproceedingsoisohigherothanothatorequiredobefore theoadjudicatingoauthorityoandoinocaseotheoaccusedois exoneratedobeforeotheoadjudicatingoauthorityowhetherohis prosecutionoonotheosameosetoofofactsocanobeoallowedoor notoisotheopreciseoquestionowhichofallsoforodetermination inothisocase." o

¶15Asoanoupshotoofotheoaboveodiscussion,othisoCourtoholds thatotheocontinuationoofoproceedingsoarisingooutoofotheoFIRoNo.o20 datedo18.10.2005ounderoSectionso13(1)(D)oreadowithoSectiono13(2)oof theoPCoActooandoSectionso420,o467,o468,o471oando120-BoIPC,oAnti Corruption o Bureau, o Hisar o (Annexure o P-2), o charge o sheet o dated

05.07.2023o(AnnexureoP-20)oandosummoningoorderodatedo05.07.2023 (AnnexureooP-21)opassedobyotheoCourtoofotheoSessionsoJudge,oHisar wouldoamountotooabuseoofotheoprocessoofotheoCourtoandoareoliableotoobe quashedoalongwithoalloconsequentialoproceedingsoarisingotherefrom quaotheopetitionersoonly.

¶16Orderedoaccordingly.o

29.01.2025 oooo(N.S.SHEKHAWAT) amitorana ooooooJUDGE Whetheroreasoned/speakingoooo: Yes/No Whetheroreportable ooooooooo:oooooooooooYes/No