Madras High Court: In a case concerning disciplinary proceedings against Superintendents of Police for alleged lapses in monitoring a 2015 jewel missing investigation, a Division Bench of N. Sathish Kumar* and M. Jothiraman, JJ., allowed the appeal filed by the State authorities, holding that the duty to file reports lay with the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) and that negligence could not be attributed to the Superintendents of Police merely on account of their supervisory role. The Court accordingly set aside the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendents of Police who had held office from 2015, while making it clear that all other directions of the Single Judge were to be scrupulously followed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.
Background:
The dispute arose from a complaint that was lodged in 2015 regarding a jewel missing case. Although the complaint was made at that time, no effective action was taken. The police later informed that the case was undetected and was closed on 12-11-2017, but no final report was filed and no RCS was served.
The Single Judge, upon examining the matter, directed disciplinary action against 14 Station House Officers (‘SHOs’) who had served from the date of FIR registration until 16-07-2025. Show cause notices were subsequently issued to those officers.
The Single Judge also sought details of the Superintendents of Police who had served between 02-09-2015 and the filing of the petition. Observing that they had supervisory powers and had not properly monitored the case or verified whether the final report was filed in court, the Single Judge directed disciplinary proceedings against them.
However, it was contended that the filing of reports was the duty of the IO, and negligence in this regard could not be attributed to the Superintendents of Police, even though they held supervisory powers.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the Single Judge took a serious view of how the investigation was proceeded and noted that the investigating officer violated the procedure contemplated under the Code. While doing so, the Single Judge also directed disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendent of Police.
The Court further observed that, while issuing such directions, disciplinary proceedings were also ordered against the Superintendent of Police who was holding posts from 02-09-2015 to the date of filing of the petition. The Court highlighted that although the Superintendent of Police are required to monitor investigations conducted by lower-level officers, merely because some officers violated procedure and failed to file final reports or closure reports in time, such negligence cannot be attributed to the Superintendent of Police.
The Court analysed that the duty to file reports lies with the IO, and therefore the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendent of Police holding the post from 2015 was not proper.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the direction to take action against the Superintendent of Police for mistakes committed by the SHOs/Inspectors of Police. The Court made it clear that, except for this portion, all other directions were to be scrupulously followed by the Director General of Police. The Court, thus, allowed the appeal, ordered that there would be no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
[State of T. N. v. Vijayarani, LPA No. 45 of 2025, decided on 19-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice N. Sathish Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent: N. Palani Kumar