SC/ST Act | Cognizance Against Public Servant For Offence Of Neglect Of Duty Cannot Be Taken Without Administrative Enquiry Report: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the absence of a recommendation by an administrative enquiry to initiate a case against the public servant would bar taking cognizance of an offence of dereliction of duty against the public servant under the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act”).

Reversing the findings of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti stated that the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non, to set in motion the penal proceedings including taking cognizance for an offence of commission and omission i.e., wilful neglect/dereliction of duty by a public servant under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989.

"..to set in motion the penal proceedings including taking cognizance for an offence of commission and omission under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989, the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non. The proviso is an inbuilt safeguard to the public servant from initiation of prosecution by every dissatisfied complainant."

Section 4(2) of the Act contemplates the duties to be performed by the public servant under the Act. If there is a wilful dereliction/neglect on the part of the public servant in performing the duties, then the provision of punishment for imprisonment is made under Section 4(1) of Act i.e., for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.

Proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act states that no charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry.

Background

Briefly put, it was alleged by the complainant that the Station House Officer (SHO) being a public servant, has refused to perform his duty of registering an FIR against the accused for an alleged offence committed under the Act. The trial court had refused to initiate an action against the SHO for want of recommendation of the administrative enquiry against the SHO.

Aggrieved by the trial court's order, the complainant/respondent approached the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and directed the initiation of proceedings against the SHO as per law.

Assailing the High Court's decision, an appeal was preferred by the SHO before the Supreme Court.

The question that appeared before the Court was whether cognizance of an offence against the public servant could be directed/carried out without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry.

Observation

Answering in negative, the Judgment authored by Justice SVN Bhatti clarified that the commission or omission of any of the duties by the public servant becomes a cognizable offence against the public servant only on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry.

The court held that the cognizance of an offence contained under Section 4(2) shall be taken based on the recommendation provided by an administrative enquiry.

“The recommendation of administrative enquiry on alleged failure of duty or function by a public servant would make the neglect of an offence clear and the cognizance of such an offence is legal. The competent court can take cognizance of the commission or omission of any duty specified under sub-section (2) of section 4 when made along with the recommendation and direct legal proceedings. Therefore, to constitute a prima facie case of negligence of duty, the proviso to subsection (2) of section 4 contemplates an administrative enquiry and recommendations.”, the court observed.

The Court explained the need for an administrative enquiry into the alleged act of wilful neglect of duty on the part of the public servant. The court stated that the purpose of an administrative enquiry is to find out the conduct of a public servant against whom allegations of failure of duty or function are made and the omission or commission is bonafide or willful.

To this effect, the Court approved the Judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in the Case of Bijender Singh v. State and Anr., where also it was held by the High Court that the enquiry report is to be sought before the criminal proceedings are initiated against the public servant under the Act and not before the framing of charges.

Magistrate To Call Upon Report From Department Before Initiating Proceedings Against Public Servant

The Court held that if the complaint against the public servant was filed without the recommendation of an administrative enquiry, then it is incumbent upon the magistrate to call for a report/recommendation from the Department against the named public servant. The Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court based on an administrative enquiry report can take cognizance of the alleged offence and thereon direct penal proceedings, the court said.

“By adhering to the above procedure, we hold that the Magistrate would have the accusation of a party and view of the Department while deciding to take cognizance of the offence or not.”, the court held.

Conclusion

After perusing the material evidence placed on record, the court noted that the record does not disclose that the Magistrate called for an administrative enquiry report on the dereliction of duties complained against the named public servants. The magistrate dismissed the respondent's complaint while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., whereby it stated that no case was made out against the appellant/SHO.

With regard to the impugned High Court judgment, the court held that the impugned judgment, for all purposes, adjudicated the alleged dereliction of duty by the named public servants and directed penal prosecution. These directions are not in conformity with the mandate of law as stated under Section 4(2) of the Act.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the Impugned judgment was set aside.

Case Title: THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS VERSUS PRAVEEN KUMAR @ PRASHANT

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 422

Click here to read/download the judgment