JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Petitioners herein have approached this Court for quashing of FIR No. 69 of 2010, dated 3.5.2010, registered in Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927; Section 379 read with Sections 34 and 119 of the Indian Penal Code; and Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequential proceedings arising out of aforesaid FIR in Case No. 334 of 2013, titled State of H.P. vs. Mahant Ram and Others. 2. In present case, on the basis of rukka sent by Sub Inspector Madan Dhiman, FIR in question was registered, stating therein that during verification in the Wild Life Sanctuary Shikari Devi, 40 Pine trees were found to have been felled and there were signs of attempt to vanish the evidence of cutting those trees by burning remains of stem. Spot was also speaking about removal of timber and it appeared that these trees would have been felled within a period of two months. Considering it a case of illicit felling and theft of forest produce, case was registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. During investigation, it was concluded by the Investigating Agency that petitioners Mahant Ram, the then Deputy Ranger, Nomeshwar Dutt and Khem Singh, the then Forest Guards had connived with other criminals for illegal felling, theft and transportation of forest produce, as it was their duty to protect the forest produce in the area concerned. 4. Department had also initiated Departmental proceedings by initiating an enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. In the charge sheet issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, following charge were framed: “1. Negligence in performance of Government duty that results in loss of Rs. 29,03,688/- to the Government exchequer. 2. Connivance with the offenders.” 5. On conclusion of Departmental proceedings, Inquiry Officer has submitted report, stating therein that Charge No. 1 was partly proved to the extent of dereliction and negligence in performance of Government duties and Charge No. 2 was not proved due to lack of documents/ evidence to show connivance with the offenders in the illicit felling. 6. Connivance with the offenders.” 5. On conclusion of Departmental proceedings, Inquiry Officer has submitted report, stating therein that Charge No. 1 was partly proved to the extent of dereliction and negligence in performance of Government duties and Charge No. 2 was not proved due to lack of documents/ evidence to show connivance with the offenders in the illicit felling. 6. Competent authority taking into consideration the inquiry report has concluded that the petitioners have been found guilty of dereliction and negligent in performing Government duties and they were warned to be more careful in future in discharging their official duties and responsibilities. 7. On perusal of record produced by respondent-State, no statement of any witness is there, alleging the involvement and conspiracy of petitioners with other accused for illicit felling, theft and transportation of forest produce. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused for their responsibility and duties in the area concerned to protect forest and forest produce. For the same cause Departmental proceedings were also initiated against them. 8. Petitioners, in Departmental proceedings, have been exonerated with respect to charges of connivance with the offenders. They have been found to be negligent in performing their duties, but the said negligence for want of evidence cannot be termed as criminal negligence or on account of conspiracy with other co-accused. The allegations leveled in the charge sheet are that Deputy Ranger, Mahant Ram and Beat Guards Nomeshwar Dutt and Khem Singh did not patrol in their area which resulted into commission of offence and, therefore, they have been arrayed as accused in Criminal Case. 9. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the very foundation, which was basis of lodging FIR and initiating Criminal Proceedings against the petitioners, has been vanished for their exoneration by competent authority in Departmental proceedings with respect to allegation of connivance with the offender and, therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court, petitioners are entitled for quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings initiated against them on the basis of that. 10. It is an admitted fact that there is no other material available on record other than the material available in Departmental proceedings and the evidence in both proceedings is identical. 11. The issue in reference in present case is no longer res integra. 10. It is an admitted fact that there is no other material available on record other than the material available in Departmental proceedings and the evidence in both proceedings is identical. 11. The issue in reference in present case is no longer res integra. Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 8.9.2020, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2020, titled Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW/CBI and Another, after taking into consideration its earlier pronouncements in P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 9 SCC 1 and Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 581 , has quashed the Criminal Proceedings against the petitioner therein, involving the same facts and circumstances. 12. In Radheshyam Kejriwal’s case, the Supreme Court, after referring various judgments, has concluded in Paras 38 and 39 as under: “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. (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.” It finally concluded: “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 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, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.” 13. In present case also, petitioners have been implicated for conspiracy and connivance with other criminals. For the same charge, after taking into consideration the same set of evidence petitioners have been exonerated in Departmental proceedings where lesser degree of proof would have sufficient to punish. Whereas, in criminal proceedings higher degree of assurance is required. The same set of evidence may not be suffice for that. It appears that petitioners have been arrayed accused presuming that felling, theft and transportation of forest produce could not have taken place without their connivance with offenders. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of present case and settled exposition of law, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings and trial against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, FIR No. 69 of 2010, dated 3.5.2010, registered in Police Station Gohar, referred supra and consequential Criminal Case bearing No. 334 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. vs. Mahant Ram and Others are quashed qua the petitioners and they are discharged from the offences referred in the challan/charge sheet submitted by the Police against them. 15. Needless to say that quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings against petitioners shall not have any bearing on the trial against other co-accused facing the trial in present case in illicit felling, theft and transportation of forest produce and trial against them shall be concluded by the trial Court on its own merit on the basis of evidence produced before it. 16. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.