The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that public officials cannot be subjected to adverse findings carrying serious civil or professional consequences unless the material on record clearly establishes deliberate misconduct. The assertion came as the High Court acquitted a man convicted in a 2016 rape case and expunged adverse remarks made by the trial court against investigating police officials.
Justice Neerja K. Kalson held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him by extending the benefit of doubt. The court simultaneously allowed three connected petitions filed by police officials and set aside the adverse observations and consequential directions issued against them by the trial court.
Justice Kalson asserted criminal courts must remain conscious that every victim deserved compassion and every accused was equally entitled to the protection of constitutional safeguards. Public officials discharging statutory duties could not be subjected to adverse findings carrying serious civil or professional consequences, unless the material on record clearly established deliberate misconduct.
“Conviction cannot rest upon fragmented certainty emerging out of material inconsistencies and adverse findings against public officials cannot be sustained merely on conjectures or suspicion. The rule of law demands a standard far higher than mere probability and considerably stronger than surmise.”
The Bench was assisted in the matter by advocate S.S. Jattan on the police officials’ behalf, while advocate Vikram Singh appeared for the appellant-convict.
Hearing and cogent material necessary before adverse remarks
The case has its genesis in an FIR registered on the prosecutrix’s statement alleging that she was abducted and sexually assaulted during the intervening night of September 23-24, 2016. Rohtak Additional Sessions convicted the accused under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment in September 2018.
Justice Kalson held that adverse remarks affecting the service career and reputation of public officials ought not to be recorded unless the officials were afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing and there existed cogent material demonstrating their direct involvement or deliberate dereliction.
The Bench observed that such remarks carried serious civil and professional consequences and had the potential to affect not only their service reputation but also their future career prospects. As such, the courts were required to ensure that the officials were afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing and the material on record unmistakably justified such observations, before recording findings suggestive of misconduct, deliberate dereliction or collusion.
Defective investigation by itself no ground for adverse findings
Justice Kalson further held that every defective or imperfect investigation did not automatically justify recording adverse findings against investigating officials personally. The Bench observed that a distinction must necessarily be maintained between lapses attributable to systemic inadequacies, errors of judgment or deficient investigation on one hand and deliberate misconduct or mala fide suppression on the other.
“Unless the material available on record clearly establishes conscious or intentional dereliction, Courts must exercise restraint while making observations capable of adversely affecting service career and reputation of officials.”
No specific material showing direct complicity of officials
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the petitioner-police officials had admittedly been transferred prior to presentation of the challan and that no specific material had been brought on record before the trial court demonstrating their direct complicity in the alleged deficiencies noticed during investigation. It further found that the observations appeared to have been recorded without affording the officials a meaningful opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the investigation had been conducted.
Subsequent investigation did not substantiate allegations
The court also took note of subsequent developments after the trial court’s directions. Justice Kalson observed that a separate FIR was registered and allegations regarding alleged collusion, manipulation of investigation and deliberate misconduct by the police officials had been subjected to an independent investigation. During that investigation, the entire record relating to the case was examined, statements of relevant witnesses were recorded and the role of the officials concerned was scrutinised in detail. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating agency did not find material sufficient to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner-police officials.
The Bench further noted that a cancellation report had been prepared and submitted before the competent court and the proceedings were stated to be pending consideration. Refraining from expressing opinion on the merits of those proceedings, the court observed the allegations forming the basis of the adverse observations had already undergone independent scrutiny and had not been found substantiated. It held that this subsequent development assumed significance while examining the sustainability of the adverse remarks.
Adverse observations set aside
Allowing the appeal, the High Court acquitted the appellant by extending him the benefit of doubt. It also allowed the three connected petitions filed by the police officials and expunged the trial court’s adverse observations and consequential directions against them.