Accused Exonerated & Held Innocent in Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Made To Face Criminal Prosecution Based on Same Allegations: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings, the criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue.
The Court said that the reasoning for this recourse was that the standard of proof in criminal cases is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which is far higher than ‘preponderance of probability’, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashing of FIR under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, “The legal position that emerges is that if an accused has been exonerated and held innocent in the disciplinary proceedings after the allegations have been found to be unsustainable, then the criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue.”
Advocate Salman Hashmi appeared for the Appellant and APP Raj Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The prosecution's case involves a sting operation by News Nation TV, titled "Kala Pani," showing Delhi Prisons employees allegedly accepting bribes for inmate favours, violating Delhi Prisons Rules. A CD of the telecast was given to a committee, which identified seven officials. An FIR was filed under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the police submitted a final report under Section 173 CrPC against the accused. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The Court considered whether the proceedings arising on identical allegations are liable to be quashed once the petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings.
The Court mentioned the decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. and quoted, “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 allegations. The appellant is facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the determination adjudication proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the criminal case.”
The Court observed, “In case the lower threshold could not be met in the disciplinary proceeding, there is no purpose in prosecuting the criminal proceedings where the standard of proof required to establish the guilt is higher.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and consequently, quashed the FIR registered under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Cause Title: Subhash Sharma v. Govt. Of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3980)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Salman Hashmi, Adv. R. A. Hashmi, Adv. Zeeshan Hashmi and Adv. Sana Hashm
Respondent: APP Raj Kapoor
