Administrative Enquiry is a Sine Qua Non for Initiating Penal Proceedings Against Public Servants Under Section 4 of SCST Act

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Special Court can direct the registration of an FIR against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act without a prior administrative inquiry

The court held

The High Court held that the direction to lodge an FIR was legally unsustainable as it bypassed the mandatory requirement of an administrative inquiry under the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act

It also directed

The court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed the application, and set aside the order dated June 10, 2024, insofar as it related to the direction for registration of an FIR against the applicants

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 (Pramila Devi) alleged that on January 4, 2023, one Girish Chandra Tiwari assaulted and hurled caste-based abuses at her

pp. 1-2

She claimed the police failed to register her complaint, leading her to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed in default on March 18, 2024

p. 2

On May 22, 2024, she filed a fresh application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the same incident

p. 2

By an order dated June 10, 2024, the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, directed the police to register an FIR against Girish Chandra Tiwari and further ordered the registration of an FIR against the applicants (then serving as Circle Officer and SHO) under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for neglect of duty

p. 2

The applicants challenged this direction before the High Court

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Special Court can direct the registration of an FIR against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act without a prior administrative inquiry

p. 3 / para. 5

ii.2. Whether the impugned order directing penal proceedings against the applicants was in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the SC/ST Act

p. 6 / para. 7

03Law Applied

Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically the proviso to Section 4(2), which mandates that charges against a public servant for neglect of duty "shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry"

pp. 2-3

Supreme Court precedent in State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, which established that an administrative inquiry is a sine qua non (condition precedent) for taking cognizance or initiating criminal proceedings under Section 4, as it determines whether the neglect was "willful" or a "mere error of judgment"

pp. 4-5

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3 Section 4

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 452 Section 323 Section 354 Section 504 Section 506

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 156 Section 482

04Reasoning

The High Court observed that the learned Sessions Judge directed the registration of an FIR against the applicants—public servants—without the existence or recommendation of an administrative inquiry

pp. 3-4

Applying the literal interpretation of Section 4(2) and 4(3), the court reasoned that the jurisdiction to initiate penal proceedings for infraction of duty is attracted only after an administrative report is obtained

p. 5

The court noted that the purpose of such an inquiry is to distinguish between "bonafide" and "willful" omission of duty, a safeguard intended by the legislature to protect public servants from arbitrary prosecution

pp. 5-6

Furthermore, the court found that the complainant suppressed the fact that her previous application on the same facts had been dismissed, suggesting an abuse of process

p. 6