Adverse remarks against an officer without a hearing violate natural justice principles, rendering such remarks unsustainable.

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 audi alteram partem is a foundational tenet of Criminal Jurisprudence as per which no person should be condemned without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Here in this case, neither the petitioner was summoned nor he was asked about the defects noticed by the learned Judge and he was not given an opportunity to furnish his explanation about the circumstances in which he submitted the report before him. The law in this regard is no more res-integra that adverse comment without hearing should not be passed. More particularly, the fact finding regarding conduct and character is not sustainable without taking note of stand/clarification/explanation of the other party. The instant case is squarely covered by the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMP No.421/2024 (Suresh Kumar Vs.State). The said order is being reproduced hereunder:-

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO Act Cases) No. 1, Merta (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 67/2020, whereby though the learned trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 302 and 201 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v) (va) of SC/ST Act and Section 5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act, but the learned trial Court directed the District Collector, Nagaur and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Ajmer to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality while passing adverse remarks against the petitioner. It is submitted that it is well settled principle of law that before making any adverse remarks against any person, which have serious consequences upon the career of the person concerned, an opportunity of hearing is must. Such an opportunity of hearing is the basic requirement of natural justice, however, before passing such adverse remark in the impugned order, the learned trial Court has not granted any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while passing adverse remarks against the petitioner and directing the District Collector, Nagaur and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range Ajmer to initiate inquiry against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Manish Dixit & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 1 SCC 596 and in the judgment delivered in Niranjan Patnaiak Versu