LexSTATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI versus AJAY KUMAR TYAGI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 8 S.C.R. 208 STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI v. AJAY KUMAR TYAGI (Criminal Appeal No. 1334 of 2012) AUGUST 31, 2012 [R.M. LODHA, CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Criminal C proceedings against accused under Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - Departmental proceedings also initiated on the same charges - Report of enquiry officer observing that charges not proved - Disciplinary proceedings kept in abeyance due to pendency o of criminal case - High Court in a writ petition holding that keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance was justified - In a petition uls. 482 High Court quashed the criminal proceedings holding that as the accused has been exonerated in disciplinary proceeding, criminal proceeding E deserved to be quashed - In appeal Division Bench of Supreme Court referred the question whether criminal proceedings to continue, if the accused exonerated of the charges in departmental proceedings, to Larger Bench - Larger Bench, held: The criminal proceedings were quashed F erroneously by the High Court because the accused cannot be said to have been exonerated in departmental proceedings as the report of the enquiry officer was yet to be decided by the disciplinary authority - Further, exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to G quashing of a criminal prosecution - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7113 - Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings. H For demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, criminal prosecution uls.7113 of Prevention of Corruption 208 STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI v. AJAY KUMAR TYAGI 209 Act, as well as departmental proceedings were initiated A against the respondent-accused. The enquiry officer, after conducting the departmental inquiry, in its report observed that charges against the accused was not proved due to lack of 8 evidence on record. Due to pendency of the criminal case, no action was taken on the report. The respondent-accused filed writ petition before High Court praying for concluding the departmental proceedings. High Court dismissed the petition C observing that keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance was not unjustified. Thereafter, the respondent-accused filed petition u/ s. 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the criminal o proceedings u/s. 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that since the accused had been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed on that ground alone. High Court quashed the criminal proceedings. Thereafter the E disciplinary authority exonerated the accused of the charges subject to the condition that if appellate court passed an order contrary to the order of the High Court, the matter would be reopened. State filed appeal to this Court. The Division Bench F of this Court, finding a conflict in the decision of two Division Benches of this Court on the question whether criminal proceedings against an accused, notwithstanding his exoneration on the identical charge in the departmental proceeding could continue, referred G the matter to three Judge.s Bench of this Court. The appellant-State intera/ia contended that the assumption of the High Court that the accused had been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings was H 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. A unfounded on facts because the report of the enquiry officer was not the final verdict and the same was yet to be considered by the disciplinary authority. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The order of the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts and law. Though the inquiry officer has submitted its report and found the allegation to have not been proved but, that is not the end of the matter. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority is C not bound by the conclusion of the inquiry officer and, after giving a tentative reason for disagreement and providing the delinquent employee an opportunity of hearing, can differ with the conclusion and record a finding of guilt and punish the delinquent employee. In D the present case, before the said stage reached, the accused filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for terminating the criminal proceedings and the High Court fell into error in quashing the said proceedings on the premise that the accused has been exonera
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.