Keeping Control On Employee Doesn't Permit "Bullying": Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Abetment To Suicide Charge Against Deceased's Senior
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR lodged against a senior for allegedly abetting his junior employee to commit suicide by harassing and bullying him.
It was alleged that the petitioner, who was senior of the deceased working in a government veterinary hospital, harassed and bullied him by using abusive language which forced him to commit suicide.
Justice Karamjit Singh said, "It is true that administration of the department or an office requires certain hold and control of the employees by superiors but it does not require humiliation and bullying at work place."
The Court also noted that accused used abusive language and also slapped the deceased, while reprimanding him and all this happened in the premises of the hospital during working hours on 14.10.2015 and thereafter, the deceased committed suicide on the same very day and left behind a suicide
The Court was hearing plea to quash FIR filed lodged under Section 306 IPC.
According to FIR, elder brother of deceased stated that the deceased was working as a class IV employee in Animal Husbandry Department and was posted in veterinary hospital in village Rohera.
The deceased committed suicide by hanging and a note was recovered which stated that on fateful day Balwan Singh (accused) who was posted as a Veterinary Life Stock Development Assistant in government veterinary hospital, Rohera had insulted the deceased and called him dishonest and uttered bad words and also gave a slap on his face, he added.
Counsel for the accused petitioner stated that there were allegations that the deceased was charging extra money from the general public to provide treatment to cattle. In this regard, inhabitants of the village gave affidavits that the deceased also used to issue medical prescriptions without having any authority to do so.
On this, petitioner reprimanded and further advised the deceased not to demand any bribe from the villagers who come to the hospital for treatment of their cattle, he added.
After examining the submissions, the Court referred to Nipun Aneja Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein recently the Apex Court explained as to when can the official superiors be held liable for the abetment of suicide of their junior official.
It is also settled position of law that mere mention of the name of certain individual in the suicide note, stating therein that he is responsible for his death cannot ipso facto be the sole basis for putting to accused to face trial or for conviction under Section 306 IPC, the judge added.
The Court noted that, As per prosecution version, deceased left behind one suicide note, before ending his life and in the said suicide note, the deceased specifically blamed the petitioner to be the person who had driven the deceased to end his life by committing suicide. "The suicide note was recovered from the pocket of trouser of the deceased and was sent for its examination to FSL, Madhuban."
Rejecting petitioner's contention, the Court said, "In case, petitioner herein got complaints regarding working or corrupt practices adopted by the deceased, he should have reported the same to his seniors so as to proceed against the deceased in accordance with law. However apparently, no such complaint in writing was received by the petitioner with regard to working of the deceased, prior to the occurrence in question."
The judge added that, in case, the petitioner was unhappy with the working of the deceased, he would have verbally reprimanded the deceased but there was no occasion or reason for the petitioner to slap the deceased or to use abusive language against him, as is recorded in the suicide note in question and deceased took drastic step as he was unable to bear the said humiliation.
Justice Singh highlighted that no material is available on the record that the deceased was frustrated or feeling depressed on account of work pressure or was facing some family problem.
In the light of the above, the Court opined that "sufficient material is available to proceed further against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC. The FIR was registered and challan presented by the police upon the basis of sufficient evidence."
Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate for the complainant.
Title: Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana