No disciplinary action against senior police officials for procedural lapses by subordinate officers

Madras High Court Overturns Disciplinary Action Against Tamil Nadu Superintendents of Police Court rules that procedural lapses by subordinate officers cannot be attributed to senior officials without direct evidence of negligence.

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside a directive mandating disciplinary action against five Superintendents of Police (SPs) of Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, for procedural lapses committed by subordinate officers. The court emphasized the necessity of direct evidence of negligence or misconduct for such actions against senior officials.

The judgment stems from an appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging an earlier order by a Single Judge. The Single Judge had directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Tamil Nadu, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against SPs who had served from September 2, 2015, to the date of the filing of the petition in connection with a 2015 jewel missing case. The order was issued on the grounds that the SPs failed to ensure that proper procedures were followed, which included filing a final report in court.

The case, initiated by respondent Vijayarani, arose from a complaint about missing jewels in 2015, with no action taken by the authorities at the time. The police had closed the complaint as undetected in 2017 without filing a final report. This prompted the respondent to seek judicial intervention for a direction to file the necessary report.

The division bench, comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, ruled that while SPs hold supervisory responsibilities, they cannot be held accountable for procedural violations by subordinate officers without concrete evidence of their direct involvement in the lapses. The court stated, "Merely because some officers violated the procedure and did not file the final report on time, such negligence cannot be attributed to the SPs."

The court upheld the appointment of a Special Investigation Officer to continue the investigation and instructed the DGP to follow other directions issued by the Single Judge meticulously. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

The ruling underscores the principle that accountability for procedural lapses must be based on direct evidence of negligence or misconduct, rather than supervisory roles alone.

Statutory provision(s): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482

State of Tamil Nadu v. Vijayarani, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810926