Criminal prosecution can be initiated or continued even after exoneration in departmental proceedings: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically terminate criminal proceedings against an accused on identical charges [Sajan T Sunny v. State of Kerala].Justice Kauser Edappagath went through legal precedents regarding exoneration in departmental proceedings and its impact on criminal prosecution and found that there were conflicting decisions.It noted that a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi held that the exoneration of an accused in the departmental proceeding would not ipso facto result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. Later, in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, another three-judge bench of the apex court had taken the view that if the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution are identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court. However, Justice Edappagath noted that the same dealt with the effect of adjudication proceedings on criminal prosecution and not the effect exoneration in departmental proceedings on criminal prosecution."For these reasons, I hold that the criminal prosecution against an accused can very well be initiated or continued, notwithstanding his exoneration on the identical charge in the departmental proceedings," the High Court stated in its judgment..The judgment was delivered on a plea filed by a retired public servant who served in the Department of Commercial Taxes/He moved the Court to quash the final report and all further proceedings in a 2016 case since he was exonerated in the departmental proceedings related to the same incident..The allegations in the final report accused the petitioner of illegally renewing the registration of a dealer's establishment without proper verification and violating departmental procedures.The petitioner was charged under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) and Sections 420 (cheating) and 120B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The departmental charges included renewing the registration without proper verification, amending the registration certificate and causing loss to the government. The enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner but the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty. The government later dropped the disciplinary action in the appeal filed by the petitioner.The petitioner argued that since he was exonerated in departmental proceedings related to the same incident, criminal proceedings should also be dopped..The High Court followed the principle that exoneration in departmental proceedings would not automatically terminate criminal proceedings..However, on examining the allegations against the petitioner, the Court concluded that the charges did not constitute criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as there was no evidence of corrupt practices or personal gain. The High Court also found no basis for charges under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC.Consequently, the High Court quashed the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner in the 2016 case. .The petitioner was represented by advocates R Anil, M Sunilkumar, Sujesh Menon V B, Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil), T Anil Kumar, Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, Mahesh Bhanu S, Ressil Lonan and S Lakshmi Sankar.The State was represented by Public Prosecutor Rekha..[Read Judgment]