Exoneration in departmental inquiry will not automatically eclipse criminal prosecution in every bribery case: Karnataka High Court

The exoneration in the departmental inquiry will not eclipse the trial in every criminal case, particularly the cases in which public servants were caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount with prima facie proofs like recorded conversation, evidencing demand or forensic corroboration of demand, etc., said the High Court of Karnataka.

In essence, departmental exoneration may influence, but does not automatically extinguish, criminal prosecution. Each case turns on its own factual and evidentiary matrix and the criminal case must be tested in the crucible of full-fledged trial under the stricter standard of proof, the Court said.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while refusing to quash the criminal case against petitioner Geeta R., superintendent in the office of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chitradurga. She was caught red-handed in July 2018 while allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 from the complainant for registering a cooperative society.

However, the inquiry officer attached to the office of the Lokayukta, in his report on the departmental inquiry in 2023, had exonerated her as the complainant had turned hostile, stating that he had not paid the bribe and it was claimed that money received by her was related to a certain hand loan from relatives. She filed the petition for quashing the criminal case, citing exoneration in the departmental inquiry.

No straight-jacket formula

There exists “no straight-jacketed formula” that mandates obliteration of criminal proceedings once exonerated in departmental proceedings, merely because both actions arise from the same factual foundation, the Court said.

In cases where the trap has failed or where there is absence of direct evidence of demand and acceptance, the Court said, an exoneration in departmental inquiry of the kind may indeed bear upon the sustainability on the criminal proceedings.

However, where prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance exists, and where the amount is recovered from the hands of the delinquent employee/accused, when caught red-handed receiving the tainted currency and the trap mahazar draws or documents all that is necessary to be done to prove demand and acceptance, the Court clarified, it would become prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance, and such cases must be tested in the crucible of a full-fledged trial.

In the case of the petitioner, the Court said that she has to come out clean in a full-blown trial, which is in progress.