SC/ST Act prosecution of public servants requires administrative inquiry recommendation, Allahabad High Court rules

The appellant, an illiterate Scheduled Caste widow, alleged that her minor daughter went missing in February 2020 while working as a domestic help and that the police failed to take proper action, including by not invoking the SC/ST Act and by conducting a biased investigation.

The record showed that Case Crime No. 24 of 2020 under Section 366 IPC had been registered on the appellant’s written report on 7 February 2020, followed by an investigation and charge-sheet against one accused.

The appellant later sought proceedings against seven public servants under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for wilful neglect of duty.

The Special Judge rejected her application, and she appealed under Section 14-A(1) of the Act.

1. Whether the officers wilfully neglected their duty to register an FIR.

2. Whether the complaints about the investigation, non-addition of SC/ST Act provisions, and non-arrest of other persons disclosed an offence under Section 4.

3. Whether the officers’ post-investigation conduct, including inquiries, replies, and disposal of representations, disclosed an offence under Section 4.

4. Whether the Special Judge’s order rejecting the application warranted appellate interference.

Section 4(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 penalises a non-SC/ST public servant who wilfully neglects duties imposed by the Act or its Rules; Section 4(2) identifies duties including registering an FIR, recording statements, investigating, and filing a charge-sheet; and Section 4(3) empowers the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court to take cognizance and direct proceedings.

The proviso to Section 4(2) requires an administrative inquiry and recommendation before penal proceedings are initiated against a public servant; the Supreme Court held this to be a condition precedent and statutory safeguard in State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1591.

Wilful neglect requires a specific duty, an attributable omission, and material indicating deliberate or conscious disregard; dissatisfaction with an investigation or a bona fide error, without more, is insufficient.

The Court found that the appellant’s central claim that no FIR had been registered was contradicted by the record: an FIR was registered on her own report within about two days of the daughter’s disappearance, and a later application concerning the same incident did not require a second FIR.

The investigation included witness statements, a victim statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., inspection of the scene, and submission of a charge-sheet; the appellant produced no material showing a specific duty had been wilfully neglected.

Her objections to the investigation’s direction, the sections invoked, and the treatment of later representations did not establish the elements of Section 4, and the record disclosed no requisite administrative recommendation.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Special Judge’s decision.

The appeal was dismissed and the Special Judge’s order affirmed; the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to transmit a copy of the judgment to the concerned court within 48 hours.