Patna High Court Says There Is No Concept of “Deemed Guilt” in Service Law, Quashes Punishment Against Bihar Police Officer

 

The Patna High Court has quashed disciplinary punishment imposed on a Bihar Police officer, holding that the notion of “deemed guilt” — where an officer is automatically held responsible for a lapse simply because an incident occurred in the area under his command — has no place in service law. The Single Judge bench of the High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a police officer who had been punished by departmental authorities following a large seizure of illicit liquor near the police station where he was posted. In that case, about 4,767 litres of contraband liquor were recovered by the excise authorities within the jurisdiction of the Sursand Police Station in Sitamarhi district. The allegations against the petitioner centered on an alleged failure to gather intelligence or act effectively to prevent the recovery, and he was placed under suspension while disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

Following a departmental enquiry, the competent authority concluded that the officer had derelicted his duty and imposed the penalty of stoppage of salary increments for two years with non-cumulative effect. The punishment was then enhanced by the Director General of Police in exercise of suo motu revisional powers. The officer challenged these disciplinary actions before the Patna High Court on the ground that the charges did not arise from any evidence of direct negligence, complicity, connivance or active misconduct on his part, but simply from the fact that the seizure took place in the area where he was in charge.

In its judgment, the High Court agreed with this contention, clearly stating that service jurisprudence does not recognise a concept of “deemed guilt,” whereby an official is held guilty merely because an untoward incident occurred in his territorial area. The Court observed that while a public servant is expected to perform duties diligently and to the best of his abilities, mere territorial responsibility cannot automatically be equated with negligence or culpability unless actual evidence shows deliberate laxity or negligence on the part of the officer. The bench noted that there was no cogent material on the record establishing that the petitioner had personally connived with offenders, had been negligent in an intentional or reckless manner, or had failed to discharge a specific duty in a manner that personally contributed to the offence.

The Court emphasised that strict liability or a notion of “deemed guilt” goes beyond established service law principles. It reiterated that, in the absence of evidence indicating actual misconduct or negligent performance of duty, no punishment could be upheld merely because an incident, such as illicit liquor recovery, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the officer’s police station. The documents and material on record did not reveal any specific acts of omission or commission by the petitioner that could form a legally sustainable basis for disciplinary action. Because of this lack of concrete evidence establishing the officer’s personal liability, the High Court concluded that the departmental order imposing punishment could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the disciplinary proceedings and quashed the punishment imposed on the officer. The judgment underscores the principle that disciplinary action against public servants must be grounded in evidence of actual fault or proven dereliction of duty, and cannot rest on an abstract or automatic attribution of responsibility simply because a lapse or offence took place in the officer’s geographic area of responsibility. This ruling reinforces the requirement that accountability in service law must be based on individually attributable conduct, not broad assumptions of culpability.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community