( 1. ) ISSUE which crops up for consideration in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the findings in a Departmental Enquiry in respect of conduct of police personnel leading to breach of human rights of a citizen, will have a precedent over the findings of the Human Rights Commission recorded earlier on the basis of complaint leading to an investigation under Section 14 and proceedings under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

( 2. ) FACTS giving rise to the above issue lies in a narrow compass. On 16-10-2000, the Commission received a complaint from one Smt. Geetabai and others against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who as alleged, came with other policemen to their village, abused and misbehaved with them and also threatened them, preventing them from harvesting their crops, as a result whereof the agricultural labours ran away from the field and the police personnel destroyed their crop. Allegation was also that, the police party hauled up the labours and took them to police station and kept them in custody and were harassed.

The investigation and the enquiry held on the basis of the complaint led to establishment of the correctness of complaint wherein respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were found guilty of violating human rights. The Commission, therefore, recommended for a Departmental Enquiry against them and directed State Government for payment of Rs. 30,000/- as interim compensation to the complainants and awarded Rs. 3,000/- to the labour Radheshyam.

( 3. ) THE respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against whom the Commission had tendered recommendation for a Departmental Enquiry preferred writ petition before the Court forming subject matter of W.P. No. 4166/2001 and W.P. No. 4190/2001. These writ petitioners were dismissed on 22-11-2001.

( 4. ) AS per recommendations, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charge- sheeted on 13-2-2003. After holding an enquiry and on the basis of the statement recorded during the course of enquiry, the respondents were exonerated of the charges as per enquiry report dated 5-5-2003. The respondent State, therefore, on the basis of recording of exoneration of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, declined to pay the compensation awarded by the Commission. It is this action of the State Government, which has led the Human Rights Commission to file this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

In the background of these facts the question which crops up for consideration, as posed in the beginning is as to whether the recommendation by the Commission being based on full fledged inquiry would have any bearing over a Departmental Enquiry or conversely whether the Departmental Enquiry held in pursuance to the recommendations have an overriding effect.

( 5. ) IN other words in a given case like the present one wherein the Officers/ Govt. servants in discharge of their official duties having found violating the human right of the citizens would be exonerated on the ground that in a domestic enquiry which is held against such an erring officer, the witnesses have not supported the charges.

( 6. ) CONDUCT of the officials like respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are governed by the rules framed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, it is M.P. Civil Services (CONDUCT) Rules, 1965 (referred to as 'Rules of 1965'). Rules 3 and 3-A of the Rules, 1965 provides for :-

"3. General.- (1) Every Government servant shall at all times :- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. (2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority. (ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of the powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his b