Issue

The applicant, Mr. S, a police officer attached to XYZ Police Station under ABC Police Commissionerate, faced departmental proceedings initiated on 31.03.2014 by the Joint Commissioner of Police. He was charged with malicious accusations of gross negligence and unprofessional conduct in handling a complaint.

Facts

• Initiation of Proceedings:
  • The Joint Commissioner of Police initiated a departmental proceeding against Mr. Sarkar based on allegations of gross negligence.
  • It was alleged that Mr. S received a complaint but acted casually and unprofessionally, sending only one police constable in civilian clothes to the incident site, aggravating the situation and causing damage to the complainant and his family.
• Denial and Request for Enquiry:
  • Mr. S denied the charges and requested an open enquiry under Regulation 861 of Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943.
• Complaint and Enquiry:
  • The complaint was lodged by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, xxxpur Division.
  • An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who examined eight witnesses.
  • None of the prosecution witnesses stated that Mr. S did not give a patient hearing or acted unprofessionally.
  • Despite this, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved.
• Defence and Allegations:
  • Mr. S submitted a written statement of defence, which he claimed was not considered by the Enquiry Officer.
  • Mr. S alleged bias and arbitrariness in the enquiry, claiming the Enquiry Officer ignored the statements of prosecution witnesses and his defence.
  • The Final Order, influenced by media coverage and the complainant’s father’s status as a well-known artist, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, agreeing with the biased findings.
• Jurisdictional Error:
  • Mr. S highlighted that the Joint Commissioner of Police was the Disciplinary Authority, but the Final Order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, a lower-ranking officer.
  • According to Regulation 861, only the Disciplinary Authority can pass the order of punishment, rendering the Final Order passed by a lower-ranking officer without jurisdiction, null, and void.

Solution

Mr. S approached Kshetry and Associates to serve as his legal counsel to overturn the arbitrary Final Order. Kshetry and Associates, known for his exceptional legal knowledge and meticulous arguments, aimed to challenge the biased and irregular enquiry proceedings and secure justice for Mr. S.

Legal Strategy and Outcome

• Representation:
  • Kshetry and Associates presented a strong case, highlighting the procedural irregularities, bias, and jurisdictional errors in the departmental proceedings.
  • He argued that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were influenced by external factors and not based on evidence or witness statements.
• Arguments:
  • The failure to consider the defence and witness statements violated natural justice principles.
  • The passing of the Final Order by a lower-ranking officer was a clear jurisdictional error.
• Relief Sought:
  • Kshetry and Associates sought to quash the Final Order, arguing it was null and void due to the procedural and jurisdictional flaws.

The court, convinced by the compelling arguments and evidence presented by Kshetry and Associates, ruled in favor of Mr. S, overturning the arbitrary Final Order. The case highlighted the importance of fair and unbiased proceedings and adherence to jurisdictional protocols in departmental actions.