No Coercive Action Permitted Pending Disposal of Representation Regarding Alleged Embezzlement and Civil Liability

The petitioners were temporary laborers engaged for mustard procurement at the Ammayan center until 31.05.2024.

Following their disengagement, an audit revealed a shortage of 350 quintals of mustard, valued at ₹19,77,500/-, which was allegedly misappropriated by the Society Manager (Respondent No. 6) and his son.

The Collector directed a complaint be filed against the actual culprits; however, the Administrator included the petitioners' names in the police complaint (Annexure P/3).

Consequently, the police issued notices to the petitioners under Section 179 of the BNSS.

The petitioners submitted a representation (Annexure P/1) claiming they had ceased employment before the alleged embezzlement occurred and sought an inquiry prior to the registration of an FIR.

1. Whether a direction should be issued to the police authorities to decide the petitioners' pending representation regarding their non-involvement before lodging an FIR or taking coercive action.

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions for the enforcement of legal rights and the prevention of the abuse of process.

It applied the principle of natural justice, ensuring that a representative defense (representation) submitted to an authority must be considered through a "reasoned and speaking order" when an individual’s liberty or legal standing is at stake.

The procedural framework for investigation was governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically Section 179 regarding the power to collect information/records.

The Court noted the specific grievance that the petitioners’ names were included in the complaint despite their claim of having left the procurement center on 31.05.2024, prior to the alleged misappropriation.

While the State opposed the petition, the Court observed that the petitioners had already submitted a detailed representation (Annexure P/1) and supporting evidence which remained unconsidered by the authorities.

To prevent the risk of unnecessary coercive action and to ensure equity, the Court determined that the respondent authorities must evaluate the petitioners' defense before proceeding further.

The Court carefully avoided adjudicating on the disputed facts or the merits of the embezzlement allegations, focusing instead on the procedural requirement for the administration to address the representation.

The Court held that if the authority finds further action is required after due consideration, it must proceed strictly in accordance with law.

Crucially, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the complaint until the representation is decided.