sekarreporter1: Saying that the report of a magisterial inquiry cannot be considered as the basis for initiating disciplinary action against police

[2/5, 17:05] sekarreporter1: Saying that the report of a magisterial inquiry cannot be considered as the basis for initiating disciplinary action against police personnel, a division bench of Madras High Court has overturned an order of a single judge. The bench comprising Justices R Subramanian and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, in a recent order, said, “The law is well settled to the effect that the observation or finding made in the preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 176 CrPC cannot be the basis for the finding of guilt during the disciplinary inquiry.”

The matter pertains to an appeal filed by police constable P Siddeswaran, who had worked at Pennagaram police station in Dharmapuri. Disciplinary action to the effect of reduction in rank for three years with consequential effect on the service and pension benefits, was taken against him following the death of a prisoner.

He filed a petition challenging the action in the High Court, but a single judge rejected his plea holding that the disciplinary authorities were right in imposing the punishment based on a magisterial inquiry. Challenging the order, he preferred the appeal.

The division bench, however, concurred with the contention of the appellant’s counsel that relying upon the magisterial inquiry for proceeding with disciplinary action was flawed. It said that the magisterial inquiry report can form the basis for launching disciplinary proceedings, but cannot be considered proof of delinquency, which must be established through independent evidence.

Pointing out that the court has repeatedly held that proof beyond doubt is not necessary to arrive at a decision on the guilt of an employee concerned, the bench said, some proof, however, is required and it cannot be a report of a preliminary inquiry conducted by a magistrate.
[2/5, 17:06] sekarreporter1: ..