Liability of supervisory officials for procedural lapses of subordinates requires a clear demonstration of negligence in monitoring, which was not established in this case.

(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge directing Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the 5 Superintendent of Polices who worked at Cuddalore as SPs between 02.09.2015 and the date of filing of that petition vide order dated 30.07.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.19886 of 2025.

2. A brief prelude of the factual position would be necessary on which the impugned order came to be passed is as follows:-

2.a. The respondent has filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.19886 of 2025 under 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for a direction to file final report in respect of the alleged jewel missing case which has taken place in the year 2015. The grievance of the respondent before the learned Single Judge is that despite complaint was given as early as during the year 2015 for missing of jewels, no action has been taken. Hence, the petition was filed seeking for a direction to file a final report. It was informed by the police that since the case was undetected the complaint was closed as early as on 12.11.2017. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also called for the records as to whether any final report is filed or not for closing the case. As the final report has not been filed and RCS is not served on the respondent herein, the learned Single Judge directed action against 14 SHOs who served from the date of registration of FIR to 16.07.2025. Pursuant to the said direction, it appears that now show cause notices have been issued on

26.07.2025 to the 14 SHOs.

2.b. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also sought details of Superintendent of Police who served at the relevant point of period, viz., 02.09.2015 and the date of filing of that petition. Accordingly, the list was furnished indicating the names of Superintendent of Police. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that Superintendent of Police having the supervisory powers, they have not followed the case properly and they have not even verified whether final report have been properly filed in Courts of law and directed the DGP, Tamil Nadu to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings. Only that portion is challenged before this Court.

2.c. The learned Single Judge also directed the continuation of the investigation by Special Investigation Officer. Now, it is stated that Special Investigation Officer is appointed on 10.08.2025 and the same is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that merely procedures have not been followed by the Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police who have held the post from the year 2015 cannot be brought into disciplinary proceedings. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to follow the proper procedure, though normally, SPs are also having supervisory power and to monitor the investigation, the fact remains that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to file such report in time and merely because such reports have not been filed by the Investigating Officer who dealt with the matter, the Superintendent of Police holding the position from the year 2015 cannot be found fault with.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that now Special Investigating Officer has been appointed as far as his case is concerned.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The learned Single Judge had of-course taking serious view on how the investigation is proceeded in the matter and the investigating officer has violated the procedure contemplated under Code had passed a direction to take disciplinary action against them. While doing so, the learned Single Judge also directed