HC stays order calling for suspension of cop for lapses in child abuse case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has stayed a trial court order calling for suspension of a Delhi Police official by the Police Commissioner and initiation of strict disciplinary action against him for alleged lapses concerning a child abuse case.

Observing that that judicial pronouncement should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve, the high court said although the trial court was competent to point out the lapses , the order for suspension prima facie fell within the domain of the disciplinary authority and was passed without affording an opportunity to him.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta issued notice on the petition by the official against the order and sought a response from the Delhi Police through DCP concerned within four weeks.

In the meantime, the high court said that the agency concerned shall take necessary steps in respect of the prosecution of the case.

The guiding principle for promotion of justice and prevention of injustice has to be kept in perspective, prior to the making of any such disparaging remarks as the same has a serious impact on the official career of an individual. Judicial pronouncements should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. In the facts and circumstances, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is stayed till further orders, said the high court in its order dated August 23.

Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, said that the trial court acted beyond its scope of powers and there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice as neither any opportunity was given to explain nor any show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner who has been in public service for 25 years with an unblemished record.

The court said that the condemnation of the petitioner in the absence of any opportunity for an explanation was in complete negation of natural justice and any lapses by the investigating agency can be considered after a reply

is filed.

It noted that admittedly, the petitioner was not present when the matter was initially taken up for hearing by the trial court and serious aspersions were cast even later, the trial court found that the steps taken in the case were not to its satisfaction.

The court however observed that disparaging remarks and directions for suspending the petitioner as well as for initiating the departmental action against him have a serious impact on his official

career.