Administrative Recommendation Is Sine Qua Non To Initiate Penal Proceedings Against Public Servant U/S.4 SC-ST Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court observed that while taking any action or cognizance as against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, the recommendation of the administrative enquiry was a sine qua non.

The Bench of Justice N. Satish Kumar observed, “While taking any action or cognizance as against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, unless there is a definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with regard to the negligent act under the SC/ST Act, the proceedings cannot be automatically initiated as a matter of right.”

Advocate Sharath Chandran represented the Petitioner, while Advocate K.M.D. Muhilan represented the Respondent.

Case Brief

The suo motu order of Principal District and Sessions Judge wherein the Petitioners were charged under Section 10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). It was contended that the order of Session judge was entirely out of personal motives in order to wreck vengeance against his then Personal Security Officer (PSO).

There were some altercations between two groups, one of PSO and another consisting of one Parvathi and their family members. However, the matter was settled amicably between the parties and the complaints filed by then were also closed.

However, the PSO (Petitioner) contended that the Session Judge was under the belief that he was responsible for sending some anonymous complaint against the Judge repeatedly. It was also contended that the Session Judge, in order to wreck vengeance, called the concerned Inspector of Police and orally instructed him to register an FIR as against his PSO based on the closure reports. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against him and his family members under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Thereafter, the Session Judge passed suo motu order Section 10 of the SC/ST Act for externment of the accused persons, including the PSO and his father-in-law. The Session Judge also called upon the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, (DSP) to enquire about the implementation of the order passed by him and took cognizance of offence under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act against the DSP and issued another suo motu order as against the DSP remanding him to judicial custody.

Court’s Observation

With regard to the externment order passed by the Session Judge under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act, the Court opined that there must be either a complaint or a Police report. The High Court further observed that though the Courts have been vested with powers under SC/ST Act for passing orders of externment, such externment orders are required only when there was a real atrocity committed on the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes.

The Court said, “Having regard to the nature of the complaints made by either side, its closure based on the statements of the parties earlier, registration of FIRs thereafter, passing of the externment order immediately, this Court is of the view that the order of externment passed against the PSO and other accused under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act in Crime No.283 of 2025 is totally unwarranted.”

Subsequently, with regard to the suo motu order passed by the Session Judge taking cognizance under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and ordering remand of the Deputy Superintendent of Police for not arresting the accused persons, the Court said that the arrest was purely the discretion of the Investigating Officer as the Court cannot direct that a particular person should be arrested.

“The manner in which the impugned orders are passed prima facie would probabilise the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions…While taking any action or cognizance as against a public servant under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, unless there is a definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with regard to the negligent act under the SC/ST Act, the proceedings cannot be automatically initiated as a matter of right”, the Court held.

Therefore, merely because the DSP or other Police officials have not immediately implemented some directions issued by the Session Judge in the name of externment, it cannot be said that the DSP or the other Police officials have committed an offence under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Further, the High Court directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry with regard to the specific allegations made with regard to the motive, bias and misuse of power and conversations between the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Police officials.

Cause Title: Lokeshwaran Rai V. State of Tamil Nadu

Click here to read/download Order