The court emphasized the need for specific findings and sustainability of orders, and also considered the exoneration of the petitioner in appeal.

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the Bihar Human Rights Commission (herein after referred to as ‘the Commission’) dated 5.4.2013 (Annexure 8), in File No. BHRC/COMP 2909/12, whereby and whereunder it has directed initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner and also directed the petitioner for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- to the applicant Badri Sah.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition is that one Badri Sah had lodged a complaint before the Commission stating that the petitioner, who was posted as the Officer-in-charge, Jamo Bazar, District Siwan had forcibly detained the allegationist in custody for two days. It is alleged that the petitioner had taken side of the father of the allegationist in a family dispute between the allegationist on one side and his brother and father on the other side. On the basis of such allegation, the Commission has taken up the issue. The petitioner had denied the allegation and had stated before the Commission that the allegationist had been detained to the Police Station on 31.7.2012 and he was allowed to leave the Police Station at 5 PM after executing the PR bond. It is also stated by the petitioner before the Commission that the allegationist amicably settled the matter with his aged father and brother’s wife for which report under section 107 Cr.P.C. was submitted to the SDM, Maharajganj. The matter seems to have been enquired into by the DIG, Saran Range who by his letter dated 12.11.2012 stated that the allegations levelled against the petitioner has not been proved against him. In spite of the aforesaid, the matter was considered by the Commission and the petitioner was awarded punishment of payment of compensation and direction was also issued by the Commission to initiate proceeding against him.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of order dated 5.4.2013 it would be apparent that the same has been passed without any definite findings. Merely on the possibility that the petitioner having detained the allegationist, might have subjected him to harassment, the Commission has directed for imposition of compensation and initiation of proceeding. Counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that in view of the impugned order being passed on the ground of possibility and not on specific findings, the order is not sustainable and petitioner cannot be visited with penal consequence on the basis of such order.

5. The State has filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the order passed by the Commission, compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/- was realized from the petitioner and paid to the allegationist and that after conclusion of departmental proceeding bearing Proceeding no. 22/2013, he was awarded punishment. However, the learned DIG, Saran in appeal after considering the materials quashed the order of punishment.

6. In view of the stand of the State as well as the factual position that the DIG, Saran in appeal after considering the materials quashed the order of punishment, this Court is of the view that the award of compensation quantified as Rs. 25,000/- under order dated 5.4.2013 is not sustainable. In so far as other consequence of the said order regarding initiation of the departmental proceeding is concerned, since the petitioner has finally been exonerated in appeal, this Court would not interfere with that part of the order.

7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

8. Needless to state that the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits arising out of the realization of compensation amount.