SC-ST Act| Cognizance Of Offence Of Neglect Of Duties By Public Servant Cannot Be Taken Without Recommendation Of Administrative Enquiry: SC

The Supreme Court held that the cognizance of an offence by public servant for neglect of duties under Section 4(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot taken without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry.

In that context, the Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice SVN Bhatti observed that, "In a given case, if a complaint without recommendation is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate before proceeding further to keep his decision conforming to section 4(2) read with the proviso, calls for a report/recommendation from the Department against the named public servant. The Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court based on an administrative enquiry report can take cognizance of the alleged offence and thereon direct penal proceedings. By keeping in perspective, the language/scheme of section 4, and on the literal interpretation of sub sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 4, it would be legally permissible that the jurisdiction for infraction of sub-section (2) of section 4 is attracted only on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry and then, the cognizance under sub-section (3) of section 4 is ordered."

ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the appellants, while Counsel Kapil Nath Modi appeared for the respondent.

On April 29, 2018, Prashant filed a complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO), alleging offenses under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against four individuals. When no action was taken, he submitted an application on May 9, 2018, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South Saket Court, requesting an FIR be registered based on his complaint.

On May 25, 2018, Prashant filed another application under Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act of 1989 before the Special Court, asserting that the Special Commissioner of Police (Spl. CP) and the SHO had neglected their duties by not registering an FIR or investigating his complaint. Prashant claimed that the SHO, influenced by one of the individuals, refused to acknowledge his complaint, leading him to seek intervention from higher authorities and Courts.

Despite an order from the Metropolitan Magistrate on May 22, 2018, directing the SHO to submit an Action Taken Report (ATR), no prompt action was taken. Dissatisfied, Prashant filed for an urgent hearing, but his request was dismissed. Subsequently, the Special Judge dismissed his application on June 5, 2018, stating no grounds for action against the public servants under the Act of 1989, prompting Prashant to appeal to the High Court.

On July 5, 2018, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate transferred Prashant's application to another court, which directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) to provide an enquiry report. The ACP's report, submitted on July 9, 2018, led to the dismissal of Prashant's application on August 2, 2018, a decision he appealed.

The High Court of Delhi, on April 20, 2020, ruled in favor of Prashant, noting the SHO's failure to register an FIR for offenses under the IPC and the SC/ST Act, thereby neglecting his duties under the Act. The Court directed the initiation of proceedings against the SHO for this failure. The accused, dissatisfied with this judgment, appealed to the Apex Court.

The Apex Court observed that the Magistrate would have the accusation of a party and view of the Department while deciding to take cognizance of the offence or not, since the purpose of an administrative enquiry is to find out the conduct of a public servant against whom allegations of failure of duty or function are made and the omission or commission is bonafide or willful.

It was further held that, "the consideration of negligence in the performance of duty as a fact is not taken up for consideration by us in this judgment. Taking up the merits of the negligence of duty by the public servant would be without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry and is impermissible. The Metropolitan Magistrate, keeping in perspective the binding precedents under section 156(3) of the CrPC, applied his discretion to the circumstances of the case and concluded that no offence was made out in the complaint... In our considered view, the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate is correct and unassailable in the circumstances of the case."

In light of the same, the Court held that the impugned judgment was unsustainable and contrary to the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, the impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: The State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors. vs Praveen Kumar @ Prashant (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 437) [Priti Agarwalla and Others v. The State of GNCT of Delhi and Others]

Click here to read/download the Judgment