Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atam Bodh Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Another on 28 October, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc.M No. 33234 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc.M No. 33234 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:25.10.2013
Atam Bodh Sharma ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Rakesh Bhatia,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.40 dated 21.8.2003 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Rohtak along with all consequential proceedings arising thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped , hence, the criminal proceedings in question against the Raj Kumari 2013.10.29 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc.M No. 33234 of 2011 (O&M) 2 petitioner were liable to be quashed.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, allegation against the petitioner is that while performing the duties of Secretary, he had issued letters to three teachers, although there were no vacancies qua the said posts and had thereby caused loss to the State. Admittedly inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the department have been dropped.
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of N.C.T of Delhi vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi 2012(192)DLT 478 has held as under:-
"25. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court quashed the prosecution on total misreading of the judgment in the case of P.S.Rajya (Supra). In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental Raj Kumari proceeding or the report of the Inquiry Officer based on those 2013.10.29 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc.M No. 33234 of 2011 (O&M) 3 evidence.
26. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further they are not in the same hierarchy."
In these circumstances, criminal proceedings in question against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed merely because departmental proceedings have been dropped against him. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him during trial. Anything stated above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
Dismissed.
However, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court during trial shall remain exempted subject to the following conditions:-
(i) petitioner shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute his identity as an accused; (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his Raj Kumari absence but in the presence of his counsel (v) shall 2013.10.29 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc.M No. 33234 of 2011 (O&M) 4 appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 25, 2013 arya Raj Kumari 2013.10.29 12:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document