ABDUL SATHAR Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the year 2004, the petitioner was working as a Police Constable attached to "Veraiyur Police Station " in Thiruvannamalai District. It is alleged that on 07.07.2004 at about 05.00 p.m., in connection with a case registered on the file of Veraiyur Police Station, the petitioner and yet another constable by name Mr.Karunakaran, took one Poongan the husband of the 4th respondent herein to the police station and caused simple injuries on him. The said Poongan died subsequently due to some other ailment. Alleging that the petitioner had caused human rights violation to Poongan by illegally detaining and causing physical violence to him and further alleging that because of the said injuries caused by the petitioner, Mr.Poongan died, a complaint was made before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission by the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner denied the said allegations. However, by order dated 03.08.2006 in SHRC No.7347 of 2004, the State Human Rights Commission found that the death of Mr.Poongan was due to some other ailment for which the petitioner was not responsible, however, the commission held that the petitioner had violated human rights of Poongan by illegally detaining and causing injuries and accordingly made the following recommendation: -

(2.) DURING the course of the arguments, the question regarding the maintainability of this writ petition came up based on the judgement of this Court in Rajesh Das, I.P.S., v. Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, 2010 (5) CTC 589. In that case, I had occasion to consider a similar challenge made to an order made by State Human Rights Commission. After having considered a number of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 41 of the judgement, I have summed up the legal principles as follows: -

(3.) A cursory reading of the above two judgements would go to show that they are in conflict with each other on many issues. In T.Vijayakumar case, it has been held that there is no necessity for the Government to hear the delinquent officer before the report of the State Human Rights Commission is accepted by the Government, whereas, in Rajesh Das case, I have held that the Government shall furnish a copy of the report of the Commission to the public servant concerned calling upon him to make his explanation, if any, and then pass an appropriate order either accepting or rejecting the recommendation of the Commission.