The Uttarakhand High Court has cancelled a 2013 order passed by a lower court that required a police officer to pay a fine of ₹500. The court said that no government employee can be punished or fined without being given a fair chance to explain their side. The decision came in a case involving Police Sub-Inspector Sarita Shah, who had challenged the lower court’s direction to deduct money from her salary.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Alok Mahara, who clearly stated that imposing any penalty without giving the concerned officer an opportunity to be heard is a violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the court, a punishment that affects a person’s career cannot be passed secretly or without proper procedure.
The case began many years ago, in 2013, when Shah was working as the investigating officer in a sensitive case related to allegations of rape and criminal intimidation. After completing her investigation, she filed a charge sheet against two accused persons. However, the trial court later acquitted both of them and, at the same time, passed strict comments against Shah and even ordered her to compensate one of the accused. This penalty became the main issue that Shah challenged before the High Court.
The matter dates back to August 2013, when a complaint was filed by Prabha Raturi, who was a member of the District Child Welfare Committee in Tehri Garhwal. In her complaint, she accused a man from a village in the district of allegedly raping his daughter. The case was serious, and the police began their investigation immediately.
Sub-Inspector Sarita Shah was appointed as the investigating officer. After conducting her investigation, collecting statements, and compiling evidence, she filed a charge sheet against two persons under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. Filing a charge sheet is a routine part of police work and does not prove guilt, but it indicates that the police believe there is enough material for the court to proceed with a trial.
During the trial, however, the lower court found that the evidence was not strong enough to convict the accused. As a result, both of them were acquitted. The acquittal itself was not unusual in criminal cases, as courts often give the benefit of doubt to the accused when evidence is insufficient.
But what made this case different was the criticism the trial judge directed at the investigating officer. The judge stated that Shah had wrongly framed one of the accused and that she had unjustly arrested him. The judge then relied on Section 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to order Shah to pay ₹500 as compensation to the acquitted person. The court also directed that the amount be deducted from her salary by the superintendent of police.
This order had serious implications. A penalty imposed on a government employee not only affects their income but also creates negative remarks in their service record. Such remarks can impact promotions, postings, and overall career growth.
ALSO READ: India’s love for sugary chai continues even as diabetes cases climb
ALSO READ: Delhi’s winter pollution may lower your body’s natural defenses, say doctors
Feeling that the order was unfair and legally incorrect, Sarita Shah approached the Uttarakhand High Court. She argued that Section 358 of CrPC could not be used against an investigating police officer. She pointed out that this section is meant for cases where a person has been arrested without sufficient reason and can only be invoked by a magistrate, not by a sessions judge.
She further argued that even if there had been a mistake in the investigation, the court could not directly impose a monetary penalty on her without giving her an opportunity to be heard. She stressed that a pay cut is a serious punishment and cannot be imposed casually or without proper procedure. Shah also noted that she had acted in good faith and according to the evidence available at the time.
The High Court agreed with her. Justice Mahara ruled that the lower court had acted unreasonably and outside the scope of its authority. The court said that the sessions judge did not have the legal power to invoke Section 358 against an investigating officer. The section is meant to protect citizens from wrongful arrest and is not designed to punish police officers.
The High Court also emphasised that natural justice is a fundamental principle of law. Before passing any adverse order that affects the rights, reputation, or income of a government employee, the person must be given a chance to defend themselves. This includes issuing a notice, explaining the allegations, and providing an opportunity to respond. Since none of these steps were taken in Shah’s case, the penalty was considered invalid.
Finally, the court not only cancelled the ₹500 fine but also removed the negative remarks made by the trial judge. This was important for protecting Shah’s service record and ensuring her future career was not harmed because of the earlier order.
With its decision, the Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed an important legal principle: no one can be punished without being heard, and courts must act within the limits of the law. The ruling provides clarity on how Section 358 of CrPC should be used and offers protection to police officers who perform their duties in good faith.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash