Can Accused seek quashing of Criminal Trial on his exoneration in Departmental Enquiry? HC says YES

 

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has answered affirmatively to the question as to whether an accused can seek quashing of Criminal Proceedings upon his/her exoneration in Departmental Enquiry.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed that once a conclusion is reached upon in the departmental enquiry, the issue no longer remains res integra.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioners herein had pleaded quashing of FIR against them under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; Section 379 read with Sections 34 and 119 of the Indian Penal Code; and Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In present case, on the basis of rukka sent by Sub Inspector, FIR in question was registered, stating therein that during verification in the Wild Life Sanctuary Shikari Devi, 40 Pine trees were found to have been felled and there were signs of attempt to vanish the evidence of cutting those trees by burning remains of stem. Spot was also speaking about removal of timber and it appeared that these trees would have been felled within a period of two months. Considering it a case of illicit felling and theft of forest produce, case was registered.

 During the investigation, it was concluded that the petitioners had connived with other criminals for illegal felling, theft and transportation of forest produce, as it was their duty to protect the forest produce in the area concerned.

 

Congruently, Department had also initiated Departmental proceedings by initiating an enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. In the charge sheet issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, following charge were framed:-

1. Negligence in performance of Govt. duty that results in loss of Rs.29,03,688/- to the Government exchequer. 

 

On conclusion of Departmental proceedings, Inquiry Officer has submitted report, stating therein that Charge No. 1 was partly proved to the extent of dereliction and negligence in performance of Government duties and Charge No. 2 was not proved due to lack of documents/ evidence to show connivance with the offenders in the illicit felling.

In was concluded that the petitioners have been found guilty of dereliction and negligent in performing Government duties and they were warned to be more careful in future in discharging their official duties and responsibilities.

High Court Observation

The Court on the outset stated that no statement of any witness alleging the involvement and conspiracy of petitioners with other accused for illicit felling, theft and transportation of forest produce was produced before it. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused for their responsibility and duties in the area concerned to protect forest and forest produce in Departmental proceedings.

The Court went onto note that the petitioners had been exonerated with respect to charges of connivance with the offenders. They had been found to be negligent in performing their duties, but the said negligence for want of evidence cannot be termed as criminal negligence or on account of conspiracy with other co-accused.

The Court cited SC Judgement in Ashoo Surendra Nath Tewari vs. Deputy Superitendent of Police, 2020 Latest Caselaw 498 SC, Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs State of West Bengal & Anr., 2011 Latest Caselaw 135 SC, P.S.Rajya Vs. The State of Bihar [1996] INSC 709 (9 May 1996), 1996 Latest Caselaw 468 SC

Referring to above, the Court ruled that it appears that petitioners have been arrayed accused presuming that felling, theft and transportation of forest producecould not have taken place without their connivance with offenders. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of present case and settled exposition of law, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings and trial against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

"For the same charge, after taking into consideration the same set of evidence petitioners have been exonerated in Departmental proceedings where lesser degree of proof would have sufficient to punish. Whereas, in criminal proceedings higher degree of assurance is required. The same set of evidence may not be suffice for that." 

Read Judgement Here:

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure