Setting aside a departmental proceeding on procedural grounds does not bar independent criminal prosecution.

The petitioner, a PHE Executive Engineer during the relevant period, was accused of involvement in irregular payments for individual household latrines under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin). A departmental proceeding resulted in his dismissal, but the High Court set aside the dismissal because he had not been given an opportunity to explain his case; it permitted a fresh enquiry. The petitioner was later reinstated

An FIR was registered on 2 May 2025 under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 409, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the Special Judge took cognizance on 21 February 2026

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS, arguing that the reports underlying the FIR had been interfered with in the earlier writ proceeding, that he had only processed bills for approval, and that the criminal case was abusive and mala fide

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS because they were founded on reports associated with a departmental proceeding that had been set aside

Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding was an abuse of process, given the petitioner’s asserted limited role, the delay in registering the FIR, the pending departmental process and alleged mala fides

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, that power is exercised sparingly; threshold interference may be warranted where, among other recognized categories, the allegations taken at face value do not disclose an offence or the proceeding is manifestly mala fide

Departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields, and setting aside a departmental order does not, without more, determine criminal innocence. The Court distinguished P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, where the departmental proceeding had resulted in exoneration, and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and State of Bihar v. Ashok Kumar Singh on their facts

The Court held that the petitioner’s account of merely processing bills, and his challenges to the verification and payment process, raised factual matters requiring investigation rather than resolution in an inherent-jurisdiction petition

The earlier departmental proceeding had been set aside for want of an opportunity to be heard, not on a determination that the underlying allegations were false; moreover, the initial enquiry report dated 4 April 2022 had not itself been set aside

The pending fresh departmental process, delay, cooperation with investigators and alleged service-related motive did not independently establish a ground for quashing

On the face of the allegations, the Court could not find them inherently improbable or the proceeding manifestly mala fide

It dismissed the petition seeking to quash Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11/2025, the consequential charge-sheet and the cognizance order dated 21 February 2026