"Domain Of Disciplinary Authority": Delhi HC Stays Trial Court Order Recommending SHO's Suspension Over Poor Conduct In POCSO Case

The Delhi High Court has stayed a Trial Court order recommending suspension of SHO of Kalkaji Police Station and also calling for strict disciplinary action against him, over his non appearance and failure to produce victim in a case registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta stayed the order till November 25, observing that prima facie the order for suspension fell within the domain of disciplinary authority and the same was recommended without affording an opportunity to the SHO concerned.

"The guiding principle for promotion of justice and prevention of injustice has to be kept in perspective, prior to making of any such disparaging remarks as the same has serious impact on the official career of an individual. Judicial pronouncements should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve," the Court added.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Inspector Balbir Singh, seeking expunging or deletion of the remarks made by the Trial Court in connection with a bail plea filed in an FIR registered under sec. 363 and 376 of IPC and sec. 6 of POCSO Act.

On August 20, 2022, the Trial Court had passed the order against the SHO noting that there was absolute failure on his part to improve his conduct, repeated non compliance with judicial orders, non appearance in the court and no filing of the reply to bail pleas.

It was the petitioner's case that the Trial Court acted beyond the scope of its powers and jurisdiction and that there had been a gross violation of principles of natural justice as neither any opportunity was given to explain nor any show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner.

While staying the impugned order till further orders, the High Court was of the view that it cannot be ignored that the disparaging remarks and directions for suspending the petitioner as well as for initiating department departmental action against him will have serious impact on his official career.

"Admittedly, the SHO/IO was not present when the matter was initially taken up for hearing by the learned Trial Court and serious aspersions were cast on the conduct of the SHO as well as directions were issued to the Commissioner of Police for suspending the petitioner. The status report filed at about 10:35 AM before the learned Trial Court, reflects that the matter had been taken up by the investigating agency for taking necessary action though the steps taken were not to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, which was dealing with trial of a heinous offence under Section 363/376 I.P.C. and Section 6 of POCSO Act," the Court noted.

The Court observed that though the Trial Court was competent to point out the lapses on the part of the IO or SHO in case the efforts were lacking in taking up the steps for appearance of prosecutrix, however, it prima facie opined that the orders for suspension fell within the domain of disciplinary authority and the same was recommended without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

"The condemnation of the petitioner with recommendation of suspension, in absence of any opportunity for explanation is in complete negation of fundamental principles of natural justice, though the same does not in any manner condone lapses, if any, on the part of the investigating agency which can be considered after the detailed reply is filed on record," the Court said.

As the Court stayed the trial court order, it asked the investigating agency to take necessary steps in respect of prosecution of FIR pending trial before the Trial Court in accordance with law.

"A copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court as well as Commissioner of Police, Delhi for information and compliance," the Court directed.

Case Title: BALBIR SINGH INSPECTOR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Click Here To Read Order