Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Action Against Police Officer for Dereliction of Duty

The case of Sanjay Dubey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh revolves around allegations of dereliction of duty and misconduct by a police officer in a criminal investigation. The Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary action against the appellant, a police inspector, for failing to conduct a proper investigation in a serious case involving sexual offences and SC/ST Act violations.

Background of the Case

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Sleemanabad, Katni, on July 18, 2021, under the following sections:

Sections 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Rape and Criminal Intimidation)
Sections 3 & 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Sections 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000

During the investigation, a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Katni, on October 25, 2021. The report was sent to the appellant, Inspector Sanjay Dubey, with a note directing him to conduct a DNA examination as per standard guidelines. However, he failed to take any action.

The accused in the case filed a bail application before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (MCRC No. 43998 of 2022). During the hearing, the High Court sought the case diary, but the FSL Report was not included. This omission led to concerns about suppression of critical evidence.

The High Court summoned the Superintendent of Police and the head of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jabalpur. They confirmed that the FSL Report had been sent to the police in October 2021, but the appellant failed to act on it.

Based on these facts, the High Court made adverse remarks against the appellant, stating that he was unfit to hold a responsible position and recommending disciplinary action.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, Inspector Sanjay Dubey, challenged the High Court’s observations and disciplinary action on the following grounds:

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in a bail application by making observations against him.
The case diary was maintained by multiple officers, and he was unfairly singled out.
He was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself before adverse remarks were made.
The High Court should have confined itself to deciding the bail application and not issued directives regarding his conduct.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Madhya Pradesh argued:

The appellant was grossly negligent in handling an important case.
His failure to conduct the DNA examination and include the FSL Report in the case diary amounted to dereliction of duty.
The High Court’s observations were justified, given the gravity of the lapses.
The departmental inquiry was independently initiated by the Superintendent of Police and not solely based on the High Court’s remarks.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court acknowledged that a High Court, while hearing a bail application, should generally confine itself to the bail issue. However, it held that the High Court was justified in making observations in this case because of the serious lapses in the investigation.

Key observations by the Supreme Court:

The failure to act on the FSL Report and conduct a DNA examination could have jeopardized the case.
The High Court was concerned about the impact of such lapses on the justice delivery system.
Since the Superintendent of Police had already initiated disciplinary proceedings before the High Court’s order, the observations did not unfairly prejudice the appellant.
Despite the appellant’s claim that multiple officers handled the case, he was the investigating officer and bore the primary responsibility.

Key Judgment Excerpt

The Supreme Court noted:

“The High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes.”

Regarding the appellant’s contention that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction, the Court stated:

“Though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail, it was justified in expressing concerns about the lapses in investigation.”

The Court also emphasized the role of police officers in ensuring justice:

“In such an important and sensitive case, there had been, at least prima facie, callousness on the part of the police officer(s) concerned, including the appellant, in conducting a proper investigation to bring on record all relevant materials in support of the truth.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the disciplinary action against the appellant. The Court further ruled that:

The High Court’s observations were not to be treated as final findings but as prima facie concerns.
The appellant would have the opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry.
The stay on departmental proceedings was vacated, allowing them to proceed.
The appellant could raise all defenses available to him in the inquiry.

The ruling underscores the importance of police officers ensuring thorough and responsible investigations, especially in cases involving serious offenses like sexual crimes and crimes against marginalized communities.

Petitioner Name: Sanjay Dubey.
Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Place Of Incident: Katni, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 11-05-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sanjay-dubey-vs-the-state-of-madhya-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-11-05-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category