Supreme Court Allows Appellant's Appeal -- Reinstates Criminal Proceedings Against Executive Engineer Despite Exoneration in Disciplinary Proceedings Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

RB Sharma

2026-02-17 01:07:48

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Karnataka Lokayukta against a High Court judgment quashing criminal proceedings against the respondent, an Executive Engineer, who was exonerated in disciplinary proceedings for allegedly demanding a bribe. The Court held that disciplinary and criminal proceedings are independent, with different standards of proof. Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution, especially under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court found that the High Court incorrectly applied Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., which dealt with adjudication and criminal proceedings under FERA, and erred in declaring State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi as per incuriam. The appeal was allowed, and criminal proceedings were reinstated.

Headnote

Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482-- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984-- Appellant was a lokayukta-- Respondent was serving as an Executive engineer with works and maintenance division-- Allegations of corruption against respondent-- Demand of bribe from contractor to clear five bills-- Trap-- Trap was successful-- Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings were launched-- Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings-- Criminal proceedings were quashed by high court as respondent was exonerated in departmental proceedings-- Aggrieved-- Challenged-- Standard of proofs are different in criminal and in disciplinary proceedings-- Case of Radheshyam Kejriwal (Supra) referred-- Scope of disciplinary inquiry-- Ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Tyagi (Supra) squarely applied-- Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings in two aspects viz., Non examination of Inspector of ACB who carried out raid and non examination of two indepedent witnesses-- Powers of criminal courts are wider than enquiry officer for ensuring presence of witnesses-- No justification to quash the criminal proceedings on the exoneration of delinquent employee in a departmental proceedings-- Criminal proceedings ordered to be restored and continued against respondent -- Order of High court set a side-- Appeal Allowed

Para-- 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19

Premium Content

The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access key legal points

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration mentioned in the Judgment is whether exoneration in disciplinary proceedings on merits bars criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on the same facts

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that criminal proceedings against the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 continue

2026 LawText (SC) (01) 25

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13057 of 2025)

2026-01-06

Ahsanuddin Amanullah J. , K. Vinod Chandran J.

2026 INSC 31

The Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot

Chandrashekar & Anr.

Premium Content

The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case indexes

Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against High Court judgment quashing criminal proceedings

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought reinstatement of criminal proceedings against the respondent for alleged bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Filing Reason

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings based on the respondent's exoneration in disciplinary proceedings, relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.

Previous Decisions

Disciplinary proceedings exonerated the respondent, an Executive Engineer, for allegedly demanding a bribe. The High Court quashed criminal proceedings, finding State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi per incuriam

Issues

Whether exoneration in disciplinary proceedings on merits bars criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Whether the later judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi is per incuriam for conflicting with Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.

Submissions/Arguments

The respondent argued that exoneration in disciplinary proceedings, where proof is preponderance of probabilities, should bar criminal prosecution requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt The appellant contended that disciplinary and criminal proceedings are independent, and exoneration in one does not affect the other, especially under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Ratio Decidendi

Disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are parallel and independent proceedings with different standards of proof. Exoneration in disciplinary proceedings on merits does not automatically bar criminal prosecution, particularly under statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. applies to adjudication and criminal proceedings under specific statutes like FERA, not to disciplinary proceedings under corruption laws. The later judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi is not per incuriam as it does not conflict with the earlier judgment

Judgment Excerpts

Held that disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, even on an identical allegation, are parallel proceedings Held that the proof in a disciplinary proceeding is of preponderance of probabilities while in a criminal proceeding, it has the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt Held that if the later Bench holds contrary to the earlier Bench decision of coequal strength, on the same point, the contrary dictum expressed by the later Bench would be per incuriam Held that in Radheshyam Kejriwal, the adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings were under FERA, and if exoneration is on merits, criminal prosecution ends Held that the subject matter of the offence alleged in both proceedings was the contravention of the provisions of the statute through the transaction detected

Procedural History

Disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution were initiated against the respondent for alleged bribery. The disciplinary proceedings ended in exoneration. The respondent approached the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, which was allowed. The appellant, Karnataka Lokayukta, filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which granted leave and heard the appeal