The Uttarakhand High Court has struck down an 11-year-old order of a Tehri Garhwal sessions court that had directed a deduction of ₹500 from the salary of a police officer for allegedly framing an accused under a false charge.
Justice Alok Mahara held that no penalty — including salary deduction — can be imposed on a government employee without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The court said the order was “unreasonable” and violated basic principles of natural justice.
The case arose out of a petition filed by Police Sub-Inspector Sarita Shah, who was the investigating officer in a 2013 rape case. In August 2013, Prabha Raturi, a member of the District Child Welfare Committee, Tehri Garhwal, filed a complaint alleging that a man had raped his daughter in a village in the district.
Shah investigated the allegations and filed a charge sheet under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused. Both were later acquitted by the sessions court.
While acquitting the accused in November 2013, the District and Sessions Judge observed that one of them had been “wrongfully incarcerated” and blamed the investigating officer for filing a false charge. Invoking Section 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge ordered payment of ₹500 as compensation to the accused and directed the Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal, to recover the amount from Shah’s salary.
Challenging the order, Shah argued before the High Court that:
- Section 358 CrPC cannot be invoked against an investigating officer.
- Even if an arrest is later found unjustified, only a magistrate — and not a sessions judge — can order compensation.
- A salary deduction amounts to punitive action and cannot be imposed without following due process.
- The remarks made against her were stigmatic and affected her professional record, yet she was never granted a chance to explain her conduct.
Justice Mahara agreed, noting that the sessions court had imposed a penalty in breach of procedural fairness.
The High Court observed that any punishment affecting a government employee’s service, reputation, or pay must be preceded by notice and an opportunity to be heard. In this case, no such opportunity was offered.
Holding the impugned order to be contrary to law and natural justice, the court:
- Set aside the direction to deduct ₹500 from Shah’s salary, and
- Quashed the adverse remarks made against her by the sessions judge.
The ruling restores Shah’s service record and clarifies that disciplinary or punitive action cannot be imposed through judicial orders without adhering to basic procedural safeguards.
