A sharp line has once again been drawn by the Supreme Court of India on whether departmental exoneration and corruption prosecution can travel together.
On 6 January 2026, the Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta and restored criminal proceedings against two public servants accused of bribery, despite their earlier exoneration in a departmental inquiry.
The ruling answers a recurring question in service and criminal law.
Can departmental exoneration and corruption prosecution be separated?
The Court’s response is unambiguous.
Yes, they can. And in most cases, they must.
Why Departmental Exoneration and Corruption Prosecution Differ
The Bench clarified that departmental exoneration and corruption prosecution operate in different legal universes.
Departmental proceedings are conducted by the employer. Their purpose is to examine service misconduct. The standard of proof is based on probabilities.
Criminal prosecution for corruption is led by an independent investigating agency. The objective is to determine criminal guilt.
The standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because the authorities, objectives, and standards differ, findings in one forum cannot mechanically bind the other. This principle, though well settled, was reaffirmed with precision.
When Can Exoneration Affect Criminal Prosecution
The Court carved out a narrow exception while discussing departmental exoneration and corruption prosecution.
If a departmental inquiry records a clean finding on merits that the very foundation of allegations such as demand or acceptance of bribe never existed, criminal proceedings may not survive.
However, where exoneration is the result of technical lapses, procedural defects, or failure to examine crucial witnesses, the criminal case cannot be aborted at the threshold.
Why the Accused Gained No Protection Here
In the present case, the departmental inquiry failed largely because the trap-laying officer was not examined.
The inquiry did not record that the demand of bribe was false. It did not negate acceptance of illegal gratification.
On the contrary, the record still disclosed a successful trap, recovery of tainted currency, and a chemical test confirming handling of bribe money.
Therefore, the exoneration was not on the merits. It was not a declaration of innocence. As a result, departmental exoneration and corruption prosecution could not be equated.
High Court’s Error in Applying Earlier Precedent
The High Court had relied on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. to quash the proceedings.
The Supreme Court corrected this approach.
That precedent dealt with adjudication and prosecution by the same authority under the same statute. Corruption cases stand on a different footing.
Departmental inquiry is conducted by the employer, while criminal prosecution is initiated by an independent anti-corruption agency.
The Court reaffirmed that the correct governing principle flows from State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, which recognises the autonomy of criminal prosecution despite departmental outcomes.
Final Outcome of the Appeal
The criminal appeal was allowed. The order quashing the criminal case was set aside. The prosecution for bribery will now proceed in accordance with law.
The departmental exoneration remains undisturbed.
However, the Court noted that any future conviction in the criminal case will revive service consequences, as already reserved by the disciplinary authority.
Case Details
- Case Title: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13057 of 2025
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Date of Judgment: 6 January 2026
- Appellant: Karnataka Lokayukta
- Respondents: Chandrashekar and Another
- Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…
