Delhi High Court
Satender Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Gnct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2026
$~J-1 (Criminal)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 08.05.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 07.07.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 & CRL.M.A. 35024/2023
SATENDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Varun Deswal, Ms. Punya Rekha
Angara, Mr. Danish Khan, Mr. Aman
Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara N, Ms. Sana
Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi,
Mr. Arjun Singh Mandela and Mr.
Danish Khan, Advs. with petitioner
in-person.
versus
STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State
with SI Vijay Tiwari, PS Lajpat
Nagar, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J..
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing
of FIR No. 354/2017 registered at PS Lajpat Nagar under Section 304 IPC.
Subsequently, in the chargesheet further offences under Sections
177/218/467/468/471 IPC; Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 1 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 20131 as well as Sections
3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act2, were added.
2. The case set out by the prosecution is that on 06.08.2017 the aforesaid
FIR was registered on the statement of one Rakesh Kumar S/o Mashikaran,
R/o Jhuggi No.5/30, Khichdi Pur, East Delhi, Delhi, wherein he alleged that
he was engaged in sewer cleaning work as a labourer with Contractor M/s
Dinesh Chandra (hereinafter ‘Contractor Dinesh’) in Delhi Jal Board. On
06.08.2017 Contractor Dinesh had engaged them i.e. him, Jogender S/o
Dharmpal, Annu and one other labourer aged 28 years for cleaning 25
sewers from Jal Sadan to Ring Road. Considering the death of labourers due
to inhalation of poisonous gas during sewer cleaning on earlier occasions,
the victims had, on multiple occasions asked Contractor Dinesh to provide
safety apparatus like mask etc., but the same was never provided to them
stating that the same were costly.
1
7. Prohibition of persons from engagement or employment for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic
tanks:
No person, local authority or any agency shall, from such date as the State Government may notify, which
shall not be later than one year from the date of commencement of this Act, engage or employ, either
directly or indirectly, any person for hazardous cleaning of a sewer or a septic tank.
9. Penalty for contravention of section 7:
Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 7 shall for the first contravention be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees
or with both, and for any subsequent contravention with imprisonment which may extend to five years or
with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.
2
3. Punishments for offences atrocities.– [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,–
xxx xxx xxx
(j) makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do manual scavenging or
employs or permits the employment of such member for such purpose;
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,–
xxx xxx xxx
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a
term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 2 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
3. It is alleged that the four labourers started cleaning sewers after
opening lids on Jal Vihar Road in front of Delhi Jal Board Office. They
cleaned 3-4 sewers and thereafter, at around 12.00 noon, victims started
cleaning the sewer situated opposite Sant Kabir Ram Mandir.
4. In the meanwhile, the complainant had gone to Amar Colony to bring
a hammer. After about 10 minutes, Manoj, i.e., the driver of Government
Vehicle of Jal Board who was appointed to work with them on that day
telephonically informed him that his three colleagues, having been affected
by the gas inside the sewers, had fallen down in the sewer while cleaning
and drowned.
5. However, when he ran back to the spot and started climbing down the
sewer to remove his friends, he too started feeling drowsy, and at that
moment the police officials reached on spot and pulled him out.
Subsequently, a Fire Brigade arrived at the scene and pulled them out one by
one. The police vehicle then removed the victims to the hospital. The
concerned doctor at AIIMS declared the victims as brought dead. The
incident happened as Contractor Dinesh did not provide them safety
apparatus such as Mask etc. These allegations led to the registration of
aforesaid FIR No.354/2017.
6. Subsequently, after investigation, the prosecution filed the first
chargesheet against the present petitioner. Thereafter, final report dated
20.10.2017 was filed by the police against the present petitioner. Then,
supplementary chargesheet dated 27.08.2018 was filed by the police in
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 3 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
which no person was arraigned as an accused, however, Contractor Dinesh
was kept in column no.12.
7. Later, yet another supplementary chargesheet dated 16.08.2019 was
field by the police in which Assistant Engineer namely, Priti Pant and
Executive Engineer namely, Shiv Hari were arraigned as accused.
8. Later on, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the
present petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer (Civil), Delhi Jal
Board at the relevant time. Likewise, disciplinary proceedings were also
initiated against the Assistant Engineer (Priti Pant), as well as, the Executive
Engineer (Shiv Hari).
9. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, disciplinary proceedings
were initiated vide memorandum dated 22.03.2018 and the petitioner was
called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the following two
article of charges:
“Article No.-1
Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior
Engineer under Executive Engineer (South)-II during the year
2017, committed misconduct in as much as due to gross
negligence on his part, manual cleaning of sewer manholes at
DJB’s 450 mm dia sewer line opposite Sant Kanwar Ram
Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was taken up
by the Contractor M/s. Dinesh Chandra on 6.08.2017 (Sunday)
without site supervision and without providing the mandatory
safety equipment to the workers so deployed. The above
negligence on part of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava resulted in
loss of three precious human lives as three labourers of the
contractor M/s Dinesh Chandra died of asphyxiation due to the
presence of poisonous gases inside the manhole while cleaning
the manhole manually.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 4 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
This act of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava amounts to gross
misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute
integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of
a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii)
of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time
and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board.
Article No.-2
That Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior
Engineer under Executive Engineer (South)-II during the year
2017, committed misconduct in as much as he, in connivance
with his EE and AE, manipulated and changed the original
logsheet of the hired jetting cum suction machine bearing No:
DL 1GC 5533 after the incident leading to loss of three precious
human lives in the DJB sewer manhole opposite Sant Kanwar
Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, on
06.08.2017 (Sunday) during manual cleaning of the manhole.
The above act of Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava amounts to
gross misconduct on his part, as he failed to maintain absolute
integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of
a Govt. Servant. He has, thereby, contravened Rule 3(1)(i),(ii) &
(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to
time and made applicable to the employees of Delhi Jal Board.”
10. The submission of Mr. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of petitioner is that departmental proceedings eventually
culminated into an inquiry report dated 17.08.2020, whereby the petitioner
was exonerated from both the charges and findings were recorded to the
effect that both charges have not been proved against the petitioner.
11. He submits that the inquiry report was also accepted by the
disciplinary authority and final order of exoneration of the petitioner came to
be passed on 10.09.2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 5 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
12. Mr. Hariharan also invites attention of the Court to chargesheet dated
20.10.2017 filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC against the present
petitioner for the offences under Sections 304/177/218/467/468/471 of IPC,
Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers &
their Rehabilitation Act, 2023, & Section 3(1)(j) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST
Act and the allegations contained therein. Reference has been made to the
following paragraphs of the chargesheet insofar as offence under Section
304 IPC and the offence of forgery of logbook is concerned:
“It revealed that the present accused, Satender Kumar
Srivastava while posted as a J.E. in the Kasturba Nagar
constituency directed supervisor of the jetting machine, the
driver of the jetting machine and one of his subordinate
employee to report for duty on 06.08.2017 i.e. Sunday. It
also revealed that he had directed the Rakesh, the present
complainant to carryout the cleaning of manhole of
mainline downstream from Amar Colony to Lajpat Nagar. It
also revealed that it was in the knowledge of accused
Satender Kumar Srivastava, JE that the casual labourers
belong to a SC caste and he allowed them to carry out
manual scavenging in his area being a public servant.
Later, the section of law were accordingly added and the
accused above was arrested on 21.08.2016, he produced a
stock register being maintained at his office which shows
that there were enough safety equipments available with
him on 05.08.2017 and he knowingly and deliberately did
not issue these life saving safety equipments to the casual
workers on 06.08.2017. It also revealed that no work permit
was issued by him in favour of Rakesh Kumar and Dinesh
Kumar, a approved contractor.. As per the standing
instructions, being a J.E., he was duty bound to remain
present at the place of cleaning of sewage line manhole on
06.08.2017. His mobile phone location shows that he was
not even present at the place of work but also he was out of
Delhi in the cell ID of U.P. West. The frequency of CDRS ofSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 6 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
mobile phone of accused Satender Kumar Srivastava with
Kiran Pal, Supervisor dated 07.08.2017 further reveales
that he wanted to misguide police by producing a forged
Log Book. It also revealed that there is no evidence except
the allegation against alleged contractor Dinesh Kumar. He
was not found in contact with Rakesh before the incident
and after the incident in any manner. As far as, the role of
Area Engineer Ashok Hari and Executive Engineer, Preeti
Pant is concerned, they were not aware of the work as no
work permit was issued by the J.E regarding this incident.
He (J.E) got prepared a forged Log Book of Jetting machine
which is already on file. The cleaning work of sewage line
was carried out by the accused S.K. Shrivastava without
bringing it to the knowledge and notice of his immediate
seniors and it reflects that he had got cleaned these manhole
on his on will. There is no evidence against the contractor
Dinesh Kumar./A.E., Shiv Hari and Ex. Engineer, Priti Pant
were not informed by the JE prior to the said cleaning work
of sewage line. The Visceras and other exhibits have been
deposited with the FSL Rohini vide No. 2017/CHE-6754.
dated 08.09.2017, the result is awaited. The question
documents, admitted documents and specimen documents
have also been forwarded to, the director FSL Rohini New
Delhi. The result of the FSL would be deposited in the court
through supplementary chargesheet u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.. The
investigation conducted so far reveals that there are
sufficient grounds to charge sheet the accused Satender
Kumar Srivastava S/o Sh. Girish Lal Srivastava R/o Flat
No. C-80/003, Eastern Heights Society Nyay Khand 03,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh u/s Section U/S:
304/177/218/467/468/471 IPC, 7/9 Manual Scavanging Act.
2013, 3(1) J, SC/ST Act. The accused is in Judicial Custody.
13. Additionally, Mr. Hariharan invites attention of the Court to the
following portion of the chargesheet:
“On 08.08.2017, Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, a J.E.
posted with Delhi Jal Board South Zone produced a LogSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 7 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
Book of Jetting Machine which was taken on record. Sh.
Kiran Pal, Supervisor of above firm also produced two Log
Books of Jetting Machine No. DL-1GC-5533 for the month
of July, 2017 and August 2017. It revealed that the J.E.,
Satender Kumar Srivastava got prepared a forged Log Book
after the incident and the forged Log Book of jetting
machine was signed on the first page of the book. The first
page of genuine Log Book of above jetting machine for July
2017 and August 2017 does not contain the signature of
Delhi Jal Board Officials whereas the pages inside shows
the initials of drivers, Delhi Jal Board officials who carried
out the cleaning work on respective dates with the help of
jetting machine.
It also revealed that the J.E., Satender Kumar Srivastava
was using mobile phone No. 9650094530 and he had called
up supervisor, Kiran Pal on his mobile no. 9873561871 on
05.08.2017 to direct the driver, Manoj Kumar to make
available the jetting machine for the cleaning work that was
to be carried out on 06.08.2017. it also stated by one
Amarjeet, an employee of Delhi Jal Board, who was
working under Satender Kumar Srivastava that he was
directed by the J.E. on 05.08.2017 in the evening to come on
06.08.2017 in the morning for the cleaning of Sewerage line
on Sunday. The statement of Kiran Pal, Manoj Kumar,
Amarjeet and Rakesh, the complainant have been correctly
supported by the call detail reports of mobile phones of
respective witnesses.”
14. Mr. Hariharan further submits that since the petitioner has already
been exonerated of all charges in departmental proceedings, therefore,
criminal proceedings which are also premised on identical allegations cannot
be sustained. Elaborating further, he submits that standard of proof in
department proceedings is preponderance of probability whereas in case of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 8 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
criminal proceedings the threshold of proof is higher, being beyond
reasonable doubt.
15. He further submits that the Assistant Engineer and the Executive
Engineer who were similarly charge-sheeted in the criminal case were also
exonerated in departmental proceedings. Thereafter, the said Assistant
Engineer, as well as, the Executive Engineer filed similar petitions being
CRL.M.C. 934/2021 and CRL.M.C. 935/2021 seeking quashing of FIR on
the ground that post exoneration in departmental proceedings, the FIR is
liable to be quashed qua them.
16. He submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide common
judgment dated 24.01.2023 passed in aforesaid two petitions quashed the
FIR qua the petitioners therein. He, therefore, urges that the present petition
be allowed and the FIR qua the present petitioner as well, be quashed.
17. I have heard Mr. Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner, as well as, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
and have perused the record.
18. The fundamental question which arises in the present petition for
consideration of this Court is whether proceedings arising out of FIR No.
354/2017 which is premised on identical allegations on which departmental
proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner, are liable to be
quashed once the petitioner has been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings.
19. To appreciate the case set out in the present petition, it would be
imperative to ascertain as to whether allegations in criminal proceedings
arising out of FIR No. 354/2017 and disciplinary proceedings are identical.
For the said purpose, apposite would it be to examine the allegations in final
report dated 20.10.2017 filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC, as well
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 9 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
as, Statement of Articles served vide Memorandum dated 22.03.2018, in
juxtaposition, which are as under:
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES ALLEGATIONS LEVELLED IN
SERVED VIDE MEMORANDUM THE CHARGESHEET DATED
DATED 22.03.2018 20.10.2017ARTICLE – I EXCERPTS FROM FIRST
CHARGESHEET QUA THE
COMMISSION OF OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 304 IPC ETC.
Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, It revealed that present accused,
while working as Junior Engineer
Satender Kumar Srivastava while
under Executive Engineer (South)-II
posted as a J.E. in the Kasturba
during the year 2017, committedNagar constituency directed
misconduct in as much as due tosupervisor of the jetting machine, the
gross negligence on his part, manual
driver of the jetting machine and one
cleaning of sewer manholes at DJB’s
of his subordinate employee to
450 mm dia sewer line opposite Sant
report for duty on 06.8.2017 i.e.
Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Sunday. It also revealed that he had
Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, was
directed the Rakesh, the present
taken up by the contractor M/s complainant to carry out the
Dinesh Chandra on 06.08.2017 cleaning of manhole of mainline
(Sunday) without site supervision
downstream from Amar Colony to
and without providing the mandatory
Lajpat Nagar. It also revealed that it
safety equipment to the workers so
was in the knowledge of accused
deployed. The above negligence on
Satender Kumar Srivastava, JE that
part of Sh. Satender Kumar the casual labourers belong to a SC
Srivastava resulted in loss of three
caste and he allowed them to carry
precious human lives as three out manual scavenging in his area
labourers of the contractor M/sbeing a public servant. Later, the
Dinesh Chandra died of asphyxiation
section of law were accordingly
due to the presence of poisonous
added and the accused above was
gases inside the manhole while arrested on 21.08.2016, he produced
cleaning the manhole manually. a stock register being maintained at
his office which shows that there
This act of Sh. Satender Kumar were enough safety equipmentsSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 10 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
Srivastava amounts to gross available to the casual workers on
misconduct on his part, as he failed 06.08.2017. It also revealed that no
to maintain absolute integrity, work permit was issued by him in
devotion to duty and acted in a favour of Rakesh Kumar and Dinesh
manner unbecoming of a Govt. Kumar, an approved contractor. As
Servant. He has, thereby per the standing instructions, being a
contravened Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) J.E., he was duty bound to remain
of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as present at the place of cleaning of
amended from time to time and made sewage line manhole on 06.08.2017.
applicable to the employees of Delhi His mobile phone location shows
Jal Board. that he was not even present at the
place of work but also he was out of
Delhi in the cell ID of U.P. West.
ARTICLE NO.-2 EXCERPTS FROM FIRST
CHARGESHEET QUA THE
COMMISSION OF OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S
177/218/467/468/471 IPC ETC.
FOR FORGERY OF LOG BOOKS
That Sh. Satender Kumar Srivastava, On 08.8.2017, Sh. Satender Kumar
while working as Junior Engineer Srivastava, a J.E. posted with Delhi
under Executive Engineer (South_-II Jal Board South Zone produced a
during the year 2017, committed Log Book of Jetting Machine which
misconduct in as much as he, in was taken on record. Sh. Kiran Pal,
connivance with his EE and AE, Supervisor of above firm also
manipulated and changed the produced two Log Books of Jetting
original log-sheet of the hired jetting Machine No. DL-1GC-5533 for the
cum suction machine bearing No. DL month of July, 2017 and August
1 GC 5533 after the incident leading 2017. It revealed that the J.E.,
to loss of three precious human lives Satender Kumar Srivastava got
in the DJB sewer manhole opposite prepared a forged Log book after the
Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar incident and the forged Log book of
Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, on jetting machine was signed on the
06.08.2017 (Sunday) during manual first page of the book. The first page
cleaning of the manhole. of genuine Log Book of above jetting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 11 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
machine for July 2017 and August
The above act of Sh. Satendra 2017 does not contain the signature
Kumar Srivastava amounts to gross of Delhi Jal Board Officials whereas
misconduct on his part, as he failed the pages inside shows the initials of
to maintain absolute integrity, drivers, Delhi Jal Board officials
devotion to duty and acted in a who carried out the cleaning work
manner unbecoming of a Govt. on respective dates with the help of
Servant. He has, thereby, jetting machine.
contravened Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii)
of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as
amended from time to time and made
applicable to the employees of Delhi
Jal Board.
20. A comparative reading of Article 1 of Memorandum dated 22.03.2018
and the excerpts from chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC in respect of the
allegations under section 304 IPC shows the charge alleged in Article-1 of
the Memorandum dated 22.03.2018 is that the manual cleaning of sewer
manholes was undertaken by the Contractor Dinesh on 06.08.2017 without
site supervision and without providing mandatory safety equipment to the
workers so deployed which was an act of negligence on part of the petitioner
resulting in loss of three precious human lives as three labourers of
Contractor Dinesh died of asphyxiation due to presence of poisonous gases
inside the manhole during manual cleaning process. This allegation in
essence is identical to the allegation made in police report under section 173
CrPC in respect of the offence invoked under section 304 IPC.
21. Likewise, the allegation in Article-2 of the Memorandum dated
22.03.2018 is that the petitioner in connivance with his EE and AE,
manipulated and changed the original log-sheet of the hired jetting cum
suction machine bearing No. DL 1 GC 5533 after the incident leading to loss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 12 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
of three precious human lives, which is identical to the allegations, basis
which offences u/s 177/218/467/468/471/120B IPC were sought to be
invoked.
22. At this juncture, it is significant to refer to some of the relevant
findings given by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 17.08.2020
with regard to both articles of charge levelled against the present petitioner.
The relevant findings insofar as Article-1 is concerned are as under:
“1.27 Also, there is nothing on record to prove that there was any
work order for taking up sewer cleaning work in Kasturba
Nagar Constituency issued by EE (South) II under Shri
Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO. There has to be an
official work order for the sewer cleaning work awarded to
M/s Dinesh Chander, Contractor. In the absence of such a
Work Order and contract agreement, it could not be
ascertained and firmly said that any of the Cos could call
M/s Dinesh Chander, Contractor to engage labourers to do
the sewer cleaning work opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir
on any sewer line. In this case a sewer line sizing 450 mm
dia has been suggested by the prosecution.
xxx xxx xxx
1.34 In para-2 of D-7/4-5 it has further been stated that neither
DJB nor Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO issued
any written direction for sending any jetting machine for
doing any work at Jal Sadan, Lajpat Nagar.
1.35 Para-4 of D-7/5 categorically states that no contract of the
contractor Dinesh Chander was in operation with DJB on
the day of the incident-i.e.-6-8-2017.
1.36 Para 4 on D-7/5-6 it has been stated that the deceased
persons were not deputed by DJB to do any work of
cleaning of any sewer.
xxx xxx xxx
1.41 From the above foregoing paras it is concluded that where
the incident took place was not in the jurisdiction of Shri
Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 13 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
1.42 The machine said to be engaged for sewer cleaning was
out of order on the date of incident stated by Shri Kiran
Pal, Supervisor S/o Shri Raje Ram as per the statement by
Shri Bindra Prasad, AE PW-4 during the preliminary
enquiry by Shri R.S. Negi, CE(S).
1.43 No work order to any agency for cleaning of the sewer line
opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Lajpat Nagar was
given. There are no details of work order/contract
agreement from PD-1 to PD-24 to engage labourers
including by Shri Dinesh Chander, Contractor, to take up
the sewer cleaning opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir,
Lajpat Nagar.
Conclusion
With the above explained facts, circumstances and the
available records, I find that the charges framed against
Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE under Article-I is not
proved.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Similarly, the relevant findings as well as conclusion of the inquiry
officer insofar Article 2 is concerned, reads thus:
“That Sh. Satendra Kumar Srivastava, while working as Junior
Engineer under Executive Engineer (South)-II during the year
2017, committed misconduct in as much as he, in connivance with
his EE and AE, manipulated and changed the original log-sheet of
the hired jetting-cum-suction machine bearing no: DL-1GC-5533
after the incident leading to loss of three precious human lives in
the DJBs opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir, Jal Vihar Road,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, on 06.08.2017 (Sunday) during manual
cleaning of the manhole.
xxx xxx xxx
2.7 It is observed that the log sheet usually in the custody of the
driver (Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o Shri Narayan) of the
vehicle and entry/entries, if any, should be made by the
driver only and not by the supervisor who in this case statedSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 14 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
that the entries were made and signed by him is completely
wrong doing on his part and the statement being given to
the reply of the questions are misleading / tried to be
smartly made to mislead the inquiry which was being
conducted into the incident which took place on 06-08-2017
by the prosecution and then CE (South).
xxx xxx xxx
2.9 It is observed that Shri Kiran Pal’s statements are not in
consonance. His replies are likely to keep himself in
comfortable position involving the others. The erratic
statements of Sh. Kiran Pal S/o Sh. Raje Ram shows that he
himself is involved in the episode trying to manipulate
sequences and facts of the incidents which took place on 06-
08-2017 causing loss of precious lives of 3 person.
xxx xxx xxx
2.11 It is observed that the Log Sheet which was produced before
Shri R.S. Negi, the Preliminary Inquiry Officer and attached
with the Preliminary Inquiry Report is an original log sheet
(Ref PD-21/9-16) which was signed by AE,JE and EE-Co.
Another log sheet is a fake log sheet to form a story by Sh.
Kiran Pal S/o Sh. Sh. Raje Ram and Sh. Manoj Kumar,
Driver S/o Sh. Narayan said to be working with M/s
Kleenwell Enviro Engg. Service Co.
2.12 It is not understood as why the log sheet was needed to
change and manipulated when vehicle was not made to
work/operated. Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram dared to
make the entries said to be vacant for the day of 6 th Aug
2017 and manipulated the log sheet.
xxx xxx xxx
2.15 After going through the entries of the log sheets, it is seen
that the pattern of the entries writing dates are different in
original and duplicate log sheets. I observe that where date
is mentioned there is no need to mention the day like 01-08-
2017 Mangalwar, 02-08-2017 Budhwar, 03-08-2017
Virwar and 04-08-2017 Shukrwar etc to me it seems to be in
a manipulated log sheet/book.
xxx xxx xxx
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 15 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
2.17 In a statement (PD-10) Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o
Shri Narayan has stated that the machine was not
operated as no one directed him to operate the jetting
machine and in the preliminary inquiry by then
CE(South) Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram stated that
the machine was out of order and so was not engaged
(Ref. Statement of Shri Bindra Prasad, PW-4) during the
preliminary inquiry. There seems to be consonance in the
statement that the machine was never engaged and
operated and any manipulation what so ever, admittingly,
done by Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram; has been his
wrong doing to save himself and his colleague Shri Manoj
Kumar, Driver of the bitter consequences. Here I observe
that whatever has been done, by Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri
Raje Ram and Shri Manoj Kumar, Driver of M/s
Kleenwell Enviro Engg. Service Co. And none of the Cos
have been involved in the change of log sheet and its
manipulations.
2.27 Ref. Question 18 asked by Shri Satendra Kumar
Srivastava, JE-CO to Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram.
Did you sign entries on behalf of driver alongwith making
entries in the log book? Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram
replied that I signed on behalf of driver.
xxx xxx xxx
2.47 Ref.Question 2 asked by Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava,
JE-CO to Shri Vikas Rathi, JE PW-8. There are two sets
of log books, one duly signed by JE/AE/EE concerned
(PD-21/9-16) and the other not signed by them (PD-21/1-
8) which is the authentic log sheets? Shri Vikas Rathi,
PW-8 replied that during the course of investigation both
were received from Police Station, Lajpat Nagar. As per
practice the log book duly signed by the concerned
JE/AE/EE on the front page is valid log book. It is not
possible to accept the log book without the signature of
concerned JE/ZE/EE.
2.48 Shri Kiran Pal S/o Shri Raje Ram admittingly
manipulated the log sheet and signed on behalf of Shri
Manoj Kumar, Driver S/o Shri Narayan. As stated by Shri
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 16 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
Manoj Kumar in PD-9 the jetting machine was asked to be
engaged/brought at Lal Sai Market instead of the machine
was said to be brought opposite Sant Kanwar Ram Mandir
that too was not operated as no directions was given by
any of the Cos including Shri Satendra Kumar Srivastava,
JE-CO.
Conclusion:
With the above facts and circumstances, I find Sh. Shri
Satendra Kumar Srivastava, JE-CO was no way involved
in the manipulation and change of the log sheet as such
the charges framed under the article-2 is not proved.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. Evidently, the petitioner has been exonerated in disciplinary
proceedings, i.e. allegations levelled both in Article 1 as well as Article 2,
which are identical to allegation in the chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC,
therefore, the question that needs to be adverted to is what is the effect of
petitioner’s exoneration in disciplinary proceedings on the criminal
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 354/2017.
25. Incidentally, this issue is no more res integra. In P.S. Rajya v. State
of Bihar, 1996 (9) SCC 1 the appellant therein was exonerated of all charges
in departmental inquiry conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission and
the conclusion of exoneration was concurred by the Union Public Service
Commission which led to passing of final orders by the President in favour
of the appellant. However, when the appellant moved the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cognizance of charge, the High Court
dismissed the petition. The challenge was taken to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and in the given factual backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme CourtSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 17 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
formulated the following question in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which
reads as under:
“3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this
appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the
prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with
Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the
appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the
light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission
and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.”…
26. The above formulated question was answered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the following terms:
“17. At the outset we may point out that the learned counsel for
the respondent could not but accept the position that the
standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal
case is far higher than the standard of proof required to
establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also
accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental
proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the
same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the
departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these
premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in
accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is
identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings
and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports
submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to
proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings……
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central
Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High
Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues
raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report
of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of
the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude
the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held thatSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 18 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the
criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be
pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the
High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order
dated 27-3-19961 for allowing the appeal and quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. Likewise, in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3
SCC 581, the question arose that after exoneration of the appellant in
adjudication proceedings under the provisions of Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, whether criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and
circumstances can be allowed to be continued. In this factual backdrop, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a criminal
case is much higher than that of the adjudication proceedings.
The Enforcement Directorate has not been able to prove its case
in the adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been
exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is facing trial
in the criminal case. Therefore, in our opinion, the
determination of facts in the adjudication proceedings cannot be
said to be irrelevant in the criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR
1945 Lah 23] the Full Bench had not considered the effect of a
finding of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that will
be evident from the following passage of the said judgment : (AIR
p. 27)
“… I must, however, say that in answering the question, I have
only referred to civil cases where the actions are in personam
and not those where the proceedings or actions are in rem.
Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such proceedings or
actions would be relevant in criminal cases, it is unnecessary
for me to decide in this case. When that question arises for
determination, the provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act,
will have to be carefully examined.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 19 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can
broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be
launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are
independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the
adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding
for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate
is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the
provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or
Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of
the person facing trial for identical violation will depend
upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in
adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on
merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the
allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the
person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same
set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to
continue, the underlying principle being the higher
standard of proof in criminal cases.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as
to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well
as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the
exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication
proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there isSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 20 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication
proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of
the process of the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. Similarly, in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent
of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr., (2020) 9 SC 636 also, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court relying upon the report of the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”)
whereby the CVC refused to give sanction for prosecution of the appellant
opining that prima facie charges do not seem to be established against the
appellant, observed that chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving
the same facts appear to be bleak and accordingly, set aside the judgment of
the High Court and that of the Special Judge whereby they had observed that
there was no need for sanction under Section 197 CrPC and proceeded
against the petitioner. For making such observations the Hon’ble Supreme
Court referred to para 38(vii) of Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra). The relevant
observation of the Court reads thus:
“14. From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the
High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a
reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should
have been exonerated.
15. Applying the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case, it
is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order dated 22-12-2011,
the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same
facts appear to be bleak. We, therefore, set aside the
judgment [Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI, 2014 SCC OnLine
Bom 5042] of the High Court and that of the Special Judge and
discharge the appellant from the offences under the Penal Code.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 21 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
29. The legal position which thus, emerges from the law exposited in the
above noted decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that once an accused
has been exonerated and held innocent in disciplinary proceedings after the
said allegations have been found to be unsustainable on merits, then criminal
prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to
continue. This reasoning is predicated on the principle that the standard of
proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt which is far higher than
preponderance of probability which is the standard of proof required in
disciplinary proceedings. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by
the said decisions.
30. It is also relevant to note that a coordinate bench of this Court in a
common judgment in Shiv Hari & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC
OnLine Del 362 and other connected matter, while dealing with the cases of
the co-accused, i.e., the Assistant Engineer and the Executor Engineer has
already quashed the same FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom qua
them, relying upon the decision in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra). The
relevant extract from Shiv Hari (supra) reads thus:
“21. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration
is whether in the facts and circumstances of the immediate
case, the criminal charges set out in the impugned
supplementary charge sheet would survive in light of
exoneration on grounds of merit in departmental enquiry
proceeding, for the same charges in the same factual
matrices. On a perusal of the impugned supplementary
charge sheet dated 16.08.2019 and the memorandum of
charges, what emerges is that the substance of charges are
indeed identical and in consideration of the same factual
matrices.
22. In the opinion of this Court, paragraph 38(vii) of
Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) would squarely apply whenSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 22 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
imported to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
Paragraph 38(vii) of the aforementioned judgment of the
Supreme Court is reproduced herein again for convenience:
“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these
decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution
can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary
before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings
are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in
the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the
proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement
Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of
law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication
proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for
identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding.
If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on
technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may
continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where
the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and
the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the
same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed
to continue, the underlying principle being the higher
standard of proof in criminal cases
39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to
judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication
proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is
identical and the exoneration of the person concerned
in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is
found on merit that there is no contravention of the
provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 23 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of
the process of the court. ”
23. At this juncture, it would be relevant to distinguish the
applicability of the decision rendered in Ajay Kumar
Tyagi (supra) from the facts of the present case. Attention is
drawn to the following paragraphs of the judgment:
“4. The enquiry officer conducted the departmental
inquiry and submitted its report. The enquiry officer
observed that “the evidence on record does not
substantiate the charge of demand and acceptance of
bribe” by the accused and, accordingly, recorded the
finding that the charge against the accused has not
been proved due to lack of evidence on record”
(emphasis supplied)
24. A perusal of the above reveals that in the said case,
charges of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption
Act could not be proved due to lack of evidence on record.
Whereas in the present case, the Inquiry Officer in
disciplinary proceedings considered all the evidence and
material on record to conclude that the charges against
Petitioners could not be proved for want of reliability of the
Prosecution’s witness and evidence presented, and in light
of the evidence submitted by and examination of the
Petitioners.
25. In Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra), the Apex Court has
affirmed the power of the High Court under Section 482 of
the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in respect of the
accused who have been exonerated in disciplinary enquiry
proceedings. Videocon Industries Limited v. State of
Maharahstra, (2016) 12 SCC 315, elaborated on the
yardsticks laid down in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) as
under:
“17. Clarifying the position, the majority in Radheshyam
Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of
W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721]
observed that the yardstick would be to judge as to
whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings asSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 24 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
well as the proceeding for the prosecution is identical
and the exoneration of the person concerned in the
adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found
on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions
of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the
person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the
court. On the basis of the aforesaid principles, the
majority proceeded to analyse the factual matrix and
analysed the finding recorded by the adjudicating
authority and opined when there is a finding by the
Enforcement Directorate in the adjudication proceeding
that there is no contravention of any of the provisions of
the Act, it would be unjust and an abuse of the process of
the court to permit the Enforcement Directorate to
continue with the criminal prosecution.”
26. Further, in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, (2020) 9 SCC 636, and
in J Sekar v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2022) 7 SCC 370,
also applied the principles delivered in Radheshyam
Kejriwal (supra).
27. This Court is of the view that the principles culled out
in Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) should squarely apply to
the present case. The standard of proof being higher in
criminal cases, and considering that the Disciplinary
Authority has already confirmed the exoneration of
Petitioners on merits, prosecution on the same set of facts
should not be allowed to continue against them. The
standard of proof which is warranted for conviction in a
criminal case is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, whereas
the standard of proof required to hold a person guilty in
disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of
probabilities. When a person has been found not to be
guilty and disciplinary proceedings have exonerated them,
they cannot be convicted on the principle of proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, especially, when the evidence
that is to be adduced in the criminal proceeding is identical
to the very same evidence in the disciplinary proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 25 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
Even though both the criminal proceedings and civil
proceedings are separate from each other and continue
parallely, it can be said with certitude that if it is found fit
not to proceed ahead in disciplinary proceedings which is
based on the same set of facts and the same set of evidence,
then it would be unreasonable and violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India to allow the continuation of
criminal prosecution against the very same person. This
Court has carefully seen the findings arrived at in the
disciplinary proceedings and is of the opinion that no
useful purpose would be served in continuing with the
criminal prosecution against the two Petitioners who were
facing identical charges in the criminal proceedings and
the disciplinary inquiry and have been exonerated in the
disciplinary proceedings.
28. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court is inclined to quash the charges framed against the
Petitioners in FIR No. 354/2017.”
(emphasis supplied)
31. In view of the above clear expositions, since the petitioner has already
been exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, no useful purpose will be
served in prosecuting the criminal proceedings for the offences under
section 304 IPC and sections 177/218/467/468/471 IPC, which are premised
on the same set of allegations.
32. As regards the offences under Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and
Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, which were added subsequently,
this Court is of the view that the said offences invoked are subservient or
ancillary to the substantive offences under section 304 IPC and sections
177/218/467/468/471 IPC, which cannot exist without the substantive or
main offence. This Court has already found the substantive or main offence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 26 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
to be untenable in view of the petitioner’s exoneration in the disciplinary
proceedings. Once the primary substantive offences cannot be prosecuted
against the petitioner, the subservient or ancillary offences under Sections
7/9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers & their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act,
based on such primary offence would also fall apart.
33. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the
present is a fit case for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR No.
354/2017 registered at PS Lajpat Nagar under Sections
304/177/218/467/468/471/120-B IPC, Sections 7/9 of the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers & their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and
Sections 3(1)(j) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, and all proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed.
34. The petition stands disposed of.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
JULY 7, 2026
N.S. ASWAL
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 9362/2023 Page 27 of 27
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:08.07.2026
19:16:50
