# Taj Karan Meena v. Union of India & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 40906 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/taj-karan-meena-v-union-of-india-anr-53719
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A.G.A.,Nand Lal

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to criminal proceedings if
accused exonerated in disciplinary proceedings.

Headnotes
If an accused has been exonerated and held
innocent in the disciplinary proceedings - the
criminal prosecution premised on the same/
identical set of allegations cannot be permitted
to continue-the allegations against the applicant
has already been tested during the disciplinary
proceedings- no pre- summoning evidence with
regard to offence, as alleged against the
applicant- Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 8 ILRA 144
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 40906 of 2022

Taj Karan Meena ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Mithilesh
Kumar
Shukla,Shiv
Sagar
Singh,Sudhir Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,Nand Lal

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to criminal proceedings if
accused exonerated in disciplinary proceedings.

Headnotes
If an accused has been exonerated and held
innocent in the disciplinary proceedings - the
criminal prosecution premised on the same/
identical set of allegations cannot be permitted
to continue-the allegations against the applicant
has already been tested during the disciplinary
proceedings- no pre- summoning evidence with
regard to offence, as alleged against the
applicant- Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

1. P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar, 1996 9 SCC 1
2. Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Kumar Singh vs.
State of U.P. and Another, 2024 0 Supreme (All)
1358
3. Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. and Another,
2025 LawSuit (SC) 276
4. Illias Vs. The Collector of Customs, Madras
1968 0 Supreme (SC) 305
5. Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
1973 0 Supreme (MP) 62
6. Badri Vishal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
1969 0 Supreme (MP) 117
7. State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal
and others (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335)
8. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and
Another, (2020) 9 SCC 636;
9. Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West
Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581
10. J. Sekar Alias Sekar Reddy Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement (2022) 7 SCC 370

List of Acts
1. Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act,
1966
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Cognizance/summoning order; exonerated in
the
Departmental
enquiry;
pre-summoning
evidence;
preponderance
of
probability;
standard of proof required to establish the guilt
is far higher than the standard of proof required
to
establish
the
guilt
in
departmental
proceedings;

Appearances of parties
Petitioner Counsels-Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,
Shiv Sagar Singh, Sudhir Kumar Shukla,
Respondent Counsels-A.G.A., Nand Lal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)

1. Present application under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." has
been filed with a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 252 of
2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of
2021, under Section 3/4 of Railway
Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966,
Police Station R.P.F. Ghaziabad, District
Ghaziabad,
as
well
as
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
8.2.2022,
pending
in
the
court
of
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
(N.R.), Ghaziabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
complaint dated 10.10.2021 has been filed
8 All. Taj Karan Meena Vs. Union of India & Anr.
145
and registered as aforesaid case
crime, for theft of three old transformer
from E.M.U. Car Shade, Ghaziabad, on
9.10.2021. One stolen transformer has been
recovered from the shop of co-accused
Alimuddin Kabadi and two other old
transformers were recovered from the shop
of another co-accused Noor Mohd. Kabadi.
As per recovery memo dated 13.10.2021,
there is no allegation levelled against the
applicant for commission of aforesaid
offence. As per pre-summoning evidence,
applicant has been implicated as he allowed
the accused persons for the purpose of
loading of garbage and cleaning grass at the
place of occurrence prior to the incident.
The applicant was posted as Chief Health
Inspector, Northern Railway Zone, EMU
Car Shade Ghaziabad and was assigned
additional duty for looking after the
cleaning and sanitization. There is a
contract dated 23.4.2012 of cleaning work
of EMU Car Shade Ghaziabad premises
with a private contractor which was valid
up to 30.9.2021.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
submits
that
except
the
confessional statement of the present
applicant recorded by the Inspector of
Railway Police, there is no other presummoning evidence against the applicant.
It is further submitted that the applicant
was
exonerated
in
the
Departmental
enquiry dated 07.12.2021, wherein it has
been observed and found that the present
applicant was not present at the place of
incident at the relevant point of time, but he
was working in the Administrative Block to
prepare details of Covid vaccination work
as per the orders of his Superior officer.

4. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the applicant relied upon
the following judgments:-
 (a) P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar,
1996 9 SCC 1,

(b) Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish
Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and
Another, 2024 0 Supreme (All) 1358,

(c) Suneeti Toteja vs. State of
U.P. and Another, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 276,

5. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has not denied the fact that
applicant was exonerated in departmental
enquiry with regard to same charges. It is
further submitted that as per provision of
Section 8(1) of Railway Property (Unlawful
Possession) Act, 1966, statement of the
applicant recorded by the Inspector of
Railway Police is admissible in evidence
against the applicant. But he admitted that
except the aforesaid confessional statement,
there is no other pre-summoning evidence
against the applicant.

6. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Illias Vs. The Collector of
Customs, Madras 1968 0 Supreme (SC)
305;

(ii) Ranjit Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh 1973 0 Supreme (MP)
62;

(iii) Badri Vishal Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh 1969 0 Supreme (MP)
117;

7. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar
Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Nand Lal, learned counsel for the Union of
India and learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material available on record..

8.
After
perusal
of
material
available on record, following material
facts have been emerged that;
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (i) Theft property has been
recovered from the shop of co-accused
Islamuddin and Noor Mohd.
 (ii) At the time of incident
applicant was present in Administrative
Block
to
prepare
details
of
Covid
vaccination work as per the order of his
superior officer.

(iii) As per conclusion of the
departmental inquiry, the applicant has
been exonerated from the same charge as
alleged in the present case.

 (iv) Inspector of Railway Police
recorded the confessional statement of the
applicant with regard to the incident, in
which the applicant stated that he was not
present during the day hours at the place of
incident,
but
he
was
present
at
Administrative Block.

(v) In inquiry which has been
initiated
against
the
applicant
by
department it has been established that the
applicant was present at Administrative
Block
to
prepare
details
of
Covid
Vaccination work as per orders of his
superior officer at relevant point of time
and he was not present at the place of
incident and due to this reason, the
applicant was exonerated in departmental
enquiry for same incident.

9. Before considering the argument
advanced by both the parties, it is relevant
to re-visit of Section 3 which are
reproduced as under: Sections 3, 4 and 8(1)
of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession)
Act, 1966, which are reproduced as under:-

3. Penalty for theft, dishonest
misappropriation or unlawful possession
of railway property. Whoever commits
theft, or dishonestly misappropriates or is
found, or is proved to have been, in
possession
of
any
railway
property
reasonably suspected of having been stolen
or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he
proves that the railway property came into
his possession lawfully, be punishable-

(a) for the first offence, with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to five years, or with fine, or with both and
in the absence of special and adequate
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of
the court, such imprisonment shall not be
less than one year and such fine shall not
be less than one thousand rupees;

(b) for the second or a subsequent
offence, with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five years and also
with fine and in the absence of special and
adequate reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment of the court, such imprisonment
shall not be less than two years and such
fine shall not be less than two thousand
rupees.

Explanation.--For the purposes of
this
section,
"theft"
and
"dishonest
misappropriation" shall have the same
meanings as assigned to them respectively
in section 378 and section 403 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).

4. Punishment for abetment,
conspiracy or connivance at offences:-
Whoever
abets
or
conspires
in
the
commission of an offence punishable under
this Act, or any owner or occupier of land
or building, or any agent of such owner or
occupier in charge of the management of
that land or building, who wilfully connives
at an offence against the provisions of this
Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to five years,
or with fine, or with both.

Explanation- For the purposes of
this
section,
the
words
"abet"
and
"conspire" shall have the same meanings
as assigned to them respectively in sections
107 and 120A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Inquiry how to be made.-(1)
When an officer of the Force receives
8 All. Taj Karan Meena Vs. Union of India & Anr.
147
information about the commission of an
offence punishable under this Act, or when
any person is arrested] by an officer of the
Force for an offence punishable under this
Act or is forwarded to him under section 7,
he shall proceed to inquire into the charge
against such person.

(2) For this purpose the officer of
the Force may exercise the same powers
and shall be subject to the same provisions
as the officer incharge of a police-station
may exercise and is subject to under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of
1898), when investigating a cognizable
case:

Provided that-

(a) if the officer of the Force is of
opinion that there is sufficient evidence or
reasonable ground of suspicion against the
accused person, he shall either admit him
to bail to appear before a Magistrate
having jurisdiction in the case, or forward
him in custody to such Magistrate;

(b) if it appears to the officer of
the Force that there is not sufficient
evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion
against the accused person, he shall
release the accused person on his executing
a bond, with or without sureties as the
officer of the Force may direct, to appear,
if and when so required before the
Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall
make a full report of all the particulars of
the case to his official superior.

10. In State of Haryana and others
Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp.(1)
SCC 335) the Supreme Court after considering
all earlier decisions has given guildelines
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or the inherent powers under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an
F.I.R. or a complaint, wherein it has been
observed as under;
 "In
the
backdrop
of
the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prime facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegation in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
donot disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the ode except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the un-controverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private an
personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to
the effect that the power of quashing a
criminal proceeding should be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the
court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that
the extraordinary or inherent powers do
not confer an- arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or
caprice."

11. It is settled position of law that
if an accused has been exonerated and held
innocent in the disciplinary proceedings
after the allegations have been found to be
unsustainable,
then
the
criminal
prosecution premised on the same/ identical
set of allegations cannot be permitted to
continue.
The
reasoning
for
this
conclusion/ proposition is that the standard
of proceedings in criminal cases is beyond
reasonable doubt which is far higher than
preponderance of probability, the standard
of
proof
required
in
disciplinary
proceedings. When the same witnesses
could not be able to prove/ establish the
same/ identical charges in the disciplinary
proceeding,
there
is
no
purpose
in
prosecuting the criminal proceedings where
the standard of proof required to establish
the guilt is far higher than the standard of
proof required to establish the guilt in
departmental
proceedings.
[Ashoo
Surendranath
Tewari
Vs.
Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and
Another, (2020) 9 SCC 636; P.S. Rajya
vs. State of Bihar, 1996 9 SCC 1;
Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West
Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581; J. Sekar Alias
Sekar
Reddy
Vs.
Directorate
of
Enforcement (2022) 7 SCC 370].

12. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the charges
levelled against the applicant in the present
case as well as departmental inquiry are
same and the applicant has been exonerated
in departmental inquiry on the basis of
same charges and the reliability and
genuineness of the allegations against the
applicant has already been tested during the
disciplinary proceedings. I am of the
considered view that there is no presummoning
evidence
with
regard
to
offence, as alleged against the applicant,
hence, this application is liable to be
allowed.

13. The present application under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 252 of
2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of
8 All. Md. Tarique Vs. Union of India & Ors.
149
2021, under Section 3/4 of Railway
Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966,
Police Station R.P.F. Ghaziabad, District
Ghaziabad,
as
well
as
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
8.2.2022, against the applicant Tej Karan
Meena, pending in the court of Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
(N.R.),
Ghaziabad are, hereby, quashed.

14.
Registrar
Compliance
is
directed to send the copy of the order to the
trial Court immediately.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 9579 of 2025

Md. Tarique ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Gyan Prakash Shrivastava

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the punishment of dismissal
(modified to removal) imposed upon a
Bank
Manager
for
sanctioning
and
disbursing CKCC / loan accounts with
serious procedural lapses and abuse of
lending
powers,
without
following
mandatory lending norms, and committing
repeated dereliction of duty, warrants
interference under Article 226.

HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Bank
Officer
-
Departmental
Inquiry
-
Procedural
Irregularities in Loan Sanction - Abuse of
Lending
Powers
-

Rule
6(17)
of
Regulations, 1976 not mandatory - Writ
dismissed.
Held
:
 Petitioner was charged with 58 charges relating
to 413 CKCC loan accounts involving serious
irregularities including excess sanction and
disbursement of CKCC limits, enhancement of
limits
without
justification
or
supporting
documents, avoiding multilayer sanctioning, and
manipulating limits in CBS. Inquiry Officer
conducted proceedings on multiple dates;
petitioner was supplied with all documents,
permitted
to
cross-examine
management
witnesses
and
submit
637
documents.
Disciplinary Authority considered each charge
independently, along with documents, defence
submissions and findings of the Inquiry Officer
before concluding misconduct. Even though no
allegation of fraud or loss was proved, actual
loss is not necessary; dereliction of duties and
failure to follow mandatory procedure is
sufficient to sustain penalty. Rule 6(17) of the
Central Bank of India Officer Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 is not
mandatory;
since
petitioner
received
full
opportunity
and
did
not
request
oral
examination, non-recording of his statement
does not vitiate proceedings. Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 27-30, 36, 37) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan
Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588; Moni Shanker vs.
Union of India and another, 2008 (3) SCC 484;
Union
Bank
of
India
vs.
Bishwanath
Bhattacharjee, 2022 (13) SCC 329; Ram Avtar
vs. Chairman and MD and others, Writ Petition
No. 57592/2005; Apparel Export Promotion
Council vs. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625; SBI
vs. Bela Bagchi and others, Civil Appeal No.
5364 of 2005; Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman
and Disciplinary Authority and others, 1997 SC
357; UPSRTC vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, 2010
(6) ...; Union of India vs. Managobinda
Samantaray, Civil Appeal No. 1622-1623/2022;
Union of India and others vs. Const. Sunil
Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 219/2023; Union of
India vs. P. Gunasekaran; B.C. Chaturvedi vs.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749