Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
SHANKAR LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. The petitioner, an officer of the Rajasthan Police Service (RPS), conducted an investigation in Criminal Regular Case No.117/2024, proceeding of which is pending before the Court of A.C.J.M., Sanchore. Vide an order dated 20.02.2024, the learned Trial Court, passed an order on an application under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) filed by the complainant.
2. In the sway of emotions, after observing several procedural defects, errors and spurious course of investigation, the learned trial Court made adverse remarks/comments against the petitioner. An ex-parte finding has been given about the character and conduct of the petitioner with certain findings that wrongdoing was commited by the officer with an oblique motive to give undue benefit to the accused and consequently, his conduct was deemed suspicious. At the same time, the learned trial Judge recommendaed initiating proceedings against him under Section 16 of the CCA (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and a letter to this effect has been sent to the Director General of Police with the further direction to inform him about the progress and compliance of the inquiry.
3. The principle of
Adverse remarks against an officer without a hearing violate natural justice principles, rendering such remarks unsustainable.
Adverse judicial remarks against an Investigating Officer cannot be made without granting an opportunity for hearing, violating natural justice principles.
The court emphasized that adverse remarks against individuals must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity to be heard before such comments are made.
Natural justice mandates that individuals must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before the court issues adverse remarks that could impact their professional future.
Judicial remarks against individuals must comply with principles of natural justice, necessitating notice and an opportunity for a hearing before issuing adverse comments, particularly for officials.
The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before making disparaging remarks, quashing directions for disciplinary action against the petitioner.
Disparaging remarks against an Investigating Officer must meet a triple test of fairness, evidence, and necessity for the case's resolution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
