THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOT versus CHANDRASHEKAR & ANR.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 06-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 191 : 2026 INSC 31
The Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot  
v. 
Chandrashekar & Anr. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2026)
06 January 2026
[Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether present is a case where the criminal proceedings can be 
quashed on the exoneration of the respondent-delinquent employee 
in the departmental enquiry or they be permitted to continue.
Headnotes†
Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution – Criminal 
proceedings when cannot be quashed on the exoneration 
of the delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry – 
Respondent, an Executive Engineer (Electrical) was alleged 
to have demanded a bribe from an electrical contractor  – 
Contractor complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau 
who prepared a trap which was successful – Disciplinary 
proceedings initiated by the department, criminal prosecution 
launched by the appellant-Lokayukta – Since the departmental 
proceedings ended in exoneration, the Respondent approached 
the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings – High 
Court held that if there is an exoneration on merits where the 
allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person 
held innocent, then criminal proceedings on the same set 
of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue – 
Interference with: 
Held: Exoneration is not on merits – Enquiry Report found that 
for reason of the Officer in charge of the trap having not been 
examined, the department was unable to establish the charge, 
which is not at all an exoneration on merits, but more of a 
discharge for lack of diligence – Even without the examination of 
the Inspector who laid the trap there was sufficient proof on the 
standard of preponderance of probabilities to find the delinquent 
guilty of the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe – The 
complainant and the independent witnesses have spoken about 
* Author
192
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the incident of the successful trap laid – Enquiry Officer fell into 
an error by requiring proof at a higher level than that necessary 
under preponderance of probabilities and so did the Disciplinary 
Authority, in concurring with the same – Present is not a fit case 
where the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the exoneration 
of the delinquent employee in a departmental enquiry – Criminal 
proceedings to continue. [Paras 8, 11, 15, 18]
Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution – Both are 
independent of each other:
Held: In a disciplinary enquiry the employer satisfies itself as to 
whether the misconduct alleged is proved and if proved, decides 
on the proportionate punishment that should be imposed; both 
of which are in the exclusive domain of the employer, to be 
determined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities – In 
a criminal prosecution launched what assumes significance is the 
criminality of the act complained of or detected which has to be 
proved beyond reasonable doubt – Both are independent of each 
other not only for reason of the nature of the proceedings and the 
standard of proof, but also for reason of the adjudication being 
carried on by two different entities, regulated by a different set of 
rules and more importantly decided on the basis of the evidence 
led in the independent proceedings – If evidence is not led properly 
in one case, it cannot govern the decision in the other case where 
evidence is led separately and independently. [Para 9]
Disciplinary enquiry vis-à-vis criminal prosecution – Presence 
of a witness – No consequence in not responding to a 
summons in departmental proceedings, unlike in criminal 
proceedings:
Held: The exoneration was on the basis of two aspects, one, the 
Inspector of the ACB who carried out the trap having not been 
examined and the other, two independent witnesses accompanying 
the trap team having stated that they were standing outside the office 
room wherein the handing over of the bribe took place – The first 
ground of the Inspector not having been examined based on the 
preponderance of probabilities, is not imperative, especially when 
the two independent witnesses were examined – More so, insofar 
as the department not being at fault since three summons were 
taken out and a further request was made again for summoning the 
witness, which was declined by the Enquiry Officer – There would 
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 
193
The Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.