Mr. K. Harilal, J. - The petitioners are working as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Palai and Kuravilangad Police Stations, respectively. During the year 2009, they had been posted as Grade Assistant Sub Inspectors at the Ettumanoor Police Station. While so, on a complaint filed by Shri Sukumaran, alleging trespass against one ''Sasikumar'' and his children, notice was issued to him, he came to the Ettumanoor Police Station, along with his two sons, one of whom is blind. He was under the influence of alcohol. So, he was taken to the Medical Practitioner and obtained a certificate regarding his drunkenness. Thereafter,''Sasikumar'' started abusing the Policemen and created unruly scene in the Police Station. The Sub Inspector of Police, along with the petitioners prevented him from committing mischief in the Police Station by using minimum force and registered a crime against him and released him on bail. On 20.05.2009, by around 9.30 pm, ''Sasikumar'' committed suicide, by hanging at his house. Based on the said incident, a crime was registered at the Ettumanoor Police Station, as Crime No. 255 of 2009 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The First Information Statement pertaining to Crime No. 255 of 2009 was given by the 4th respondent, who is the son of the deceased ''Sasikumar''. In Ext.P2 First Information Statement, the 4th respondent has stated that deceased ''Sasikumar'' was mentally depressed for the past few days because of a property dispute with one ''Sukumaran'' and that ''Sasikumar'' had committed suicide due to this reason.
2. After the death of ''Sasikumar'', certain local political leaders raised hue and cry stating that ''Sasikumar'' and his two sons had been assaulted by the petitioners and the Sub Inspector of Police, after summoning them to the Police Station in connection with Crime No. 241 of 2009. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioners with effect from 22.05.2009 pending enquiry into the allegation against them and appointed the Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta, to conduct a departmental enquiry. On 24.05.2009, the 4th respondent made a complaint before the Ettumanoor Police, alleging that his father had committed suicide due to the depression suffered by him, as a result of the assault committed on him at the Police Station. Based on the complaint, a crime was registered against the Sub Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor, as well as the petitioners as Crime No. 260 of 2009, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the petitioners were re-instated in service on 28.08.2009, after revocation of their suspension.
3. While so, the petitioners came to know that on the basis of the paper report, the 1st respondent suo motu registered a complaint against the petitioners, alleging the violation of human rights. Later, one ''Dileep Raj'' filed Ext.P5 complaint before the 1st respondent, alleging human rights violation against the said ''Sasikumar'' and his family members. After registering the complaint, a report was called for from the 2nd respondent, who in turn, directed the Circle Inspector of Police, Ettumanoor, to file a report. The Circle Inspector of Police filed Ext.P6 report, stating that, on enquiry, it was revealed that the deceased ''Sasikumar'' had committed suicide due to the property dispute with his brother-in-law and also because of depression, which arose out of his excessive drinking habit. In the said report, he has pointed out that Sasikumar had attempted to commit suicide on earlier occasion also.
4. After receipt of Ext.P6 report, the 1st respondent straight away passed an order, stating that the allegation against the petitioners is that they had assaulted ''Sasikumar'' and his two sons, who are admitted in the hospital and that it is also stated that the petitioners were suspended and a crime was registered against them based on the alleged incident. On the basis of the said findings, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P7 order, holding that the human rights of ''Sasikumar'', ''Santhosh'' and ''Saneesh'' were violated and therefore, the Government has to pay Rs. 10,000/- each as compensation to the 4th and the 5th respondents and the wife of the deceased ''Sasikumar'' and that the said amount should be recovered from the officials concerned, who are found guilty during the departmental enquiry. According to the petitioners, Ext.P7 order was passed in violation of the statutory mandate under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The petitioners further submit that Ext.P7 order pre-judicially affected their future and official prospects and reputation. Therefore, such an order ought not have been passed, without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Therefore, Ext.P7 order is illegal and unsustainable under law. This is the grievance projected in this Writ Petition and it is with this averments, this Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Human Rights Commission.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
6. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Ext.P7 order is illegal and unsustainable, owing to violation of the statutory mandate under Section 16 of the Act. It is contended that the observations made by the Human Rights Commission in Ext.P7 order are pre-judicially affected the official prospects and reputation of the petitioners. When such an order was passed, the 1st respondent should have granted an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners,in view of Section 16 of the Act.
7. In view of the submissions made at the Bar, the point to be considered is, whether there is any reason or circumstance, warranting interference with Exts.P7 and P8, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the first point to be considered is, whether the reputation of the petitioners is likely to be pre-judicially affected by the findings and observations made by the 1st respondent in Ext.P7. The matter in issue centres around Section 16 of the Act, which is extracted below:
"16. Persons likely to be pre-judicially affected to be heard:- If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission-
(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person: or
(b) is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be pre-judicially affected by the inquiry,
it shall give to the person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached."
8. On an analysis of the above Section, this Court is of the view that the right to be heard granted to a party under Section 16 of the Act, is a conditional one only. If the opinion or observations or findings of the Human Rights Commission in an order passed, after enquiry, would not prejudicially affect the reputation of a person, he cannot raise the plea that he should have been given an opportunity of being heard or to adduce evidence in his defence, in the enquiry.
9. Going by Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent, it is seen that the 1st respondent has conducted three enquiries, on the basis of a suo motu complaint on seeing a newspaper report. The 1st respondent called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, a competent officer having jurisdiction over the Police Station in which the incident allegedly occurred. Further, it is seen that during the course of the said investigation by the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuravalangadu went to the hospital and recorded the statements of the family members of the deceased ''Sasikumar''. In the report, it was stated that on the basis of the departmental enquiry report, filed by the Circle Inspector of Police were suspended.
10. I have analysed the observations and findings made by the 1st respondent with a view to find out, whether it would prejudicially affect the reputation of the petitioners. I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent very carefully expressed certain opinion on the basis of the report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, and the 1st respondent has not made its own observation on any material point, which would amount to findings. This view is evident from the relief moulded by the 1st respondent in the operative portion of the order. The 1st respondent, with abundant caution, confined the enquiry, within the scope of injury and hardship suffered by the deceased and his family members, without finding fault with the petitioners or any others. More clearly, the Commission has specifically stated that the Commission has no jurisdiction to go into correctness of the conclusions in the report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. At last, the commission directed the Government to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each to the victims, ''Santhosh'' and ''Saneesh'' and the wife of the deceased ''Sasikumar'' and the said amount will be recovered from the officials concerned, who were found guilty during the departmental enquiry. It is pertinent to note that the name of the petitioners are not mentioned as Police Officers, who are found guilty and leaving open the identity of the wrong doer to the departmental enquiry to be conducted. In other words, if, in the departmental enquiry, the petitioners are found not guilty of the allegations levelled against them, they are not liable to pay any amount to the Government and the Government cannot recover the amount, if any paid to the family members of the deceased ''Sasikumar'' from the petitioners. Thus, the matter which may prejudicially affect the petitioners was left open to the departmental enquiry, wherein the petitioners would get an opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence. In the above view, I find that the 1st respondent has not arrived at a finding that the petitioners are found guilty or responsible to the allegations levelled against them in the report.
11. Even though, nobody was found guilty of such unfortunate incident in the enquiry, the 1st respondent has power and jurisdiction to direct the Government to pay compensation to the victims for the injuries suffered by them. In the instant case, I am of the opinion that the 1st respondent has very carefully passed an order in such a way, bearing in mind that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard. In this analysis, I find that the observations and opinion in Ext.P7 will not pre-judicially affect the reputation of the petitioners and they have the right to be heard and to adduce evidence in the departmental enquiry and the findings in Ext.P7 will not stand in the way of exercising their right of defence in the departmental enquiry.
12. It seems that the 1st respondent has committed a mistake by subsequently passing Ext.P8 order, on a complaint filed by the Secretary, Human Rights Protection Council, alleging the same incident passed suo motu, without noticing Ext.P7 order. Going by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the sum and substance and the operative portion of both orders are one and the same. Consequently, being a repetion made mistakenly, Ext.P8 order will stand quashed, if the same has not been withdrawn or set aside so far.
13. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
