Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 7279 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25909 of 2013)

Karnataka Power Transmission  Corporation Limited, Represented  by Managing Director (Admin. and HR) ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr.      ….Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The judgment of the High Court by which the order

of dismissal of Respondent No.1 from the service was set

aside is  the subject matter of this Appeal.  Respondent

No.1 was appointed as a Meter Reader-cum-Clerk in the

Karnataka  Power  Transmission  Corporation  Limited

(KPTCL) in the year 1974. He was promoted as a Junior

Engineer  in  the year  1997.   On 21.06.2003,  Additional

Registrar of Enquiries-I,   Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore

[1]

framed  a  charge  against  the  Respondent  which  is  as

follows:  

“Charge:

That you DBE Sri. C. Nagaraju, while working

as  Junior  Engineer  (Elecl.,)  at  KEB,  VV-1  (O&M)

South  Zone,  Vidyaranyapuram  Circle,  Mysore

during the year 1998, one Sri. K. Chandrasekhar,

Class  II  Electrical  Contractor,  Resident  of

Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore,  (hereinafter  called as

‘Complainant’) had approached you for obtaining

electrical power supply to the house and shop of

his customer Smt. Savithramma, on               14-5-

1998, and you demanded a sum of Rs.1,250/- as

illegal  gratification,  and  on  16-5-1998  you  once

again demanded and accepted illegal gratification

of  Rs.750/-  as  advance  amount,  from  the

complainant  for  doing  the  said  work  of  giving

electrical power supply, and thereby you being a

public servant failed to maintain absolute integrity

and devotion to duty and did an act which was

unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby

[2]

you  have  committed  an  act  of  misconduct  as

enumerated  under  Rule  3(1)(i)  &  (iii)  of  K.E.B.

Employees  Service  (Conduct)  Regulation  Rules,

1988.”

2. The  Respondent  submitted  his  explanation  to  the

charge.  After conducting an inquiry, Additional Registrar

of Enquiries-I, Karnataka Lokayukta, who was nominated

as  the  Inquiry  Officer,  held  that  the  charge  against

Respondent No.1 was proved.  The Lokayukta examined

the  inquiry  report  and  approved  the  findings  of  the

Inquiry Officer.  Having regard to the serious misconduct

committed by Respondent No.1, the Lokayukta imposed

the penalty of dismissal from service under Clause VIII of

Regulation No.9 of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees

(Classification,  Discipline,  Control  and  Appeal)

Regulations, 1987.

3. The final notice was issued by the Appellant seeking

an  explanation  from  Respondent  No.1  as  to  why  the

report of the Inquiry Officer should not be accepted.  The

reply submitted by Respondent No.1 was considered, and

[3]

by  an  order  dated  23.03.2007,  Respondent  No.1  was

dismissed from service.  The said order was affirmed by

the Appellant Authority on 24.06.2008.  Aggrieved by the

order of dismissal from service, Respondent No.1 filed a

writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was

allowed by a learned single Judge by a judgment dated

08.09.2011.  The Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant was

dismissed by the Division Bench.  Dissatisfied with the

judgment of the High Court, the Appellant is before this

Court.   

4. It is relevant to note that Respondent No.1 was tried

by  the  Court  of  Special  Judge,  Mysore  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “the  Criminal  Court”)  for  committing

offences  under  Sections  7,  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the PC

Act”).   He was acquitted by the Criminal  Court  as the

prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support

the case of the prosecution.   

5. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed

the Writ Petition relying upon the judgments of this Court

[4]

in          Captain M. Paul Anthony v.  Bharat Gold

Mines Ltd.1 and  G.M. Tank v.  State of Gujarat.2  It

was held that  the charges in  the departmental  inquiry

and the criminal case are the same and Respondent No.1

ought not to have been dismissed from service after he

was found not guilty by the Criminal Court.  The Division

Bench upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge

by  observing  that  an  order  of  dismissal  from  service

could not have been passed once the Respondent was

honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court.   

6. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Appellant

submitted that the charges framed against Respondent

No.1  in  the  Criminal  Court  and  the  Departmental

Inquiries  were  different.   He  submitted  that  the

complainant  resiled from  his  statement  and  turned

hostile before the Criminal Court.  He further submitted

that  the evidence which was the basis  of the order of

dismissal  was  different  from  the  evidence  before  the

Criminal  Court.  By  relying  upon  the  judgments  of  this

Court, the learned counsel emphasized that an acquittal

1 (1999) 3 SCC 679 2 (2006) 5 SCC 446

[5]

by  a  Criminal  Court  does  not  bar  a  departmental

proceeding.  According to him, the standard of proof in a

criminal  trial  is  different  from  what  is  required  for  a

departmental  proceeding.   Strict  rules  of  evidence are

followed in criminal proceedings whereas preponderance

of probabilities is what is taken into consideration in a

departmental inquiry. Reliance was placed by the learned

counsel for the Appellant on the judgments of this Court

in  Depot  Manager,  A.P.  State  Road  Transport

Corporation v.  Mohd. Yousuf Miya3 and  Ajit Kumar

Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,

Haldia.4   

7. The learned counsel  for  Respondent No.1 justified

the judgments of the High Court by arguing that an order

of dismissal cannot be passed by the Appellant after he

was  honourably  acquitted  by  the  Criminal  Court.   He

stated that the essence of the charge in the criminal trial

and  the departmental inquiry is the same.  He supported

the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  by  submitting  that

the  Departmental  Authorities  were  bound  by  the

3 (1997) 2 SCC 699 4 (2005) 7 SCC 764

[6]

judgment of the Criminal Court.  He urged that there is

no truth in the allegation of demand and acceptance of

illegal gratification against Respondent No.1.  He further

submitted  that  the  evidence  adduced  in  the

departmental inquiry is not sufficient for warranting the

imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service.  

8. Mr. Chandrasekhar who was an electrical contractor

submitted  a  complaint  in  which  it  was  stated  that  he

made an application for an electrical connection in favour

of his client, Mrs. Savithri.  He alleged in the complaint

that Respondent No.1 demanded a bribe of Rs.1250/- for

giving the electricity connection.  After negotiation, the

amount of bribe was reduced to Rs.750/-.  Unwilling to

pay the illegal gratification, Mr. Chandrasekhar lodged a

complaint before the Lokayukta Police on 15.05.1998.  A

case was registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with

Section  13(2)  of  the  PC  Act.    A  trap  was  laid  and

Respondent  No.1 was caught  accepting the amount  of

Rs.750/-  from  Mr.  Chandrasekhar.   The  right  hand  of

Respondent  No.1  was  washed  in  Sodium  Carbonate

solution and it turned into pink colour.  The complainant

[7]

appeared before the Inquiry Officer and deposed against

Respondent No.1 about demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification.   That  apart,  the  complainant  Mr.

Chandrasekhar also gave details about the trap laid down

by the Lokayukta Police.   Mr. Santhosh Kumar, Deputy

Superintendent  of  Police  who  conducted  the  trap  was

examined  as  PW3.   After  taking  into  account  the

evidence,  the  Inquiry  Officer  held    Respondent  No.1

guilty  of  the  charge.   Considering  the  gravity  of

misconduct  in  demanding  and  accepting  illegal

gratification, the Disciplinary Authority found Respondent

No.1 not fit to continue in service.  

9. Acquittal  by  a  criminal  court  would  not  debar  an

employer  from  exercising  the  power  to  conduct

departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules

and  regulations.   The  two  proceedings,  criminal  and

departmental,  are  entirely  different.   They  operate  in

different  fields  and  have  different  objectives.5  In  the

disciplinary  proceedings,  the  question  is  whether  the

Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his

5 Ajit Kumar Nag (supra)  

[8]

removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case

may  be,  whereas  in  the  criminal  proceedings,  the

question is whether the offences registered against him

under the PC Act are established, and if established, what

sentence should be imposed upon him.  The standard of

proof,  the  mode  of  inquiry  and  the  rules  governing

inquiry  and  trial  in  both  the  cases  are  significantly

distinct and different.6   

10. As the High Court set aside the order of dismissal on

the basis of the judgments of this Court in  Captain M.

Paul  Anthony (supra)  and  G.M.  Tank (supra),  it  is

necessary to examine whether  the said judgments are

applicable  to  the  facts  of  this  case.   Simultaneous

continuance  of  departmental  proceedings  and

proceedings in a criminal case on the same set of facts

was the point considered by this Court in  Captain M.

Paul  Anthony’s case  (supra).   This  Court  was  of  the

opinion that departmental proceedings and proceedings

in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is

no bar.   However,  it  is  desirable  to  stay departmental

6 State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417

[9]

inquiry  till  conclusion  of  the  criminal  case  if  the

departmental  proceedings and criminal  case are based

on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the

criminal  case  against  the  delinquent  employee is  of  a

grave  nature  which  involves  complicated  questions  of

law and fact.  On the facts of the said case, it was found

that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings

were based on identical  set  of  facts  and the evidence

before the Criminal Court and the departmental inquiry

was  the  same.   Further,  in  the  said  case  the

departmental  inquiry  was  conducted  ex  parte.

In such circumstances, this Court held that the ex parte

departmental proceedings cannot be permitted to stand

in view of the acquittal of the delinquent by the Criminal

Court on the same set of facts and evidence.  The said

judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.  In

the  present  case,  the  prosecution  witnesses  turned

hostile in the criminal trial against Respondent No.1.  He

was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the ground that

the prosecution could not produce any credible evidence

to prove the charge.  On the other hand, the complainant

[10]

and  the  other  witnesses  appeared  before  the  Inquiry

Officer  and  deposed  against  Respondent  No.1.   The

evidence  available  in  the  Departmental  Inquiry  is

completely different from that led by the prosecution in

criminal trial.   

11. Reliance  was  placed  by  the  High  Court  on  a

judgment of this Court in G.M. Tank (supra) whereby the

Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed.  In

the said case, the delinquent officer was charged for an

offence  punishable  under  Section  5(1)(e)  read  with

Section 5(2)  of  the PC Act,  1988.   He was honourably

acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed

to prove the charge.  Thereafter,            a Departmental

Inquiry  was  conducted  and  he  was  dismissed  from

service.  The order of dismissal was upheld by the High

Court.  In the Appeal filed by the delinquent officer, this

Court  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  departmental

proceedings and criminal case were based on identical

and  similar  set  of  facts.   The  evidence  before  the

Criminal Court and the departmental proceedings being

exactly the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the

[11]

employee by a Criminal Court has to be given due weight

by  the  Disciplinary  Authority.   On  the  basis  that  the

evidence  in  both  the  criminal  trial  and  Departmental

Inquiry  are  the  same,  the  order  of  dismissal  of  the

Appellant therein was set aside.  As stated earlier, the

facts of this case are entirely different.  The acquittal of

Respondent  No.1  was  due  to  non-availability  of  any

evidence  before  the  Criminal  Court.   The  order  of

dismissal  was  on  the  basis  of  a  report  of  the  Inquiry

Officer before whom there was ample evidence against

Respondent No.1.   

12. In  Krishnakali  Tea  Estate v.  Akhil  Bhartiya

Chah Mazdoor Sangh 7 this Court was concerned with

the validity of the termination of the services of workmen

after  acquittal  by  the  Criminal  Court.   Dealing  with  a

situation  similar  to  the  one  in  this  case,  where  the

acquittal  was  due  to  lack  of  evidence  before  criminal

court  and sufficient  evidence was available  before  the

Labour  Court,  this  Court  was  of  the  opinion  that  the

7 (2004) 8 SCC 200

[12]

judgment in  Captain M. Paul Anthony’s case (supra)

cannot come to the rescue of the workmen.   

13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf

of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, we are of the

view that interference with the order of dismissal by the

High Court was unwarranted.  It is settled law that the

acquittal  by  a  Criminal  Court  does  not  preclude  a

Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer.  The

Disciplinary Authority is  not bound by the judgment of

the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the

Departmental  Inquiry  is  different  from  that  produced

during the criminal  trial.  The object of a Departmental

Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of

misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of

determining whether he should be continued in service.

The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not

strictly  based  on  the  rules  of  evidence.  The  order  of

dismissal  which  is  based  on  the  evidence  before  the

Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings,  which is

different  from  the  evidence  available  to  the  Criminal

[13]

Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High

Court.   

14. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  the  Appeal  is

allowed.      

         …................................J.

                                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                                                ..…….............................J.

                             [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, September 16, 2019  

[14]