We hold, declare and direct that it shall be appropriate exercise of jurisdiction as well as ensuring just and fair investigation and trial that courts return a specific finding in such cases, upon recording of reasons as to deliberate dereliction of duty, designedly defective investigation, intentional acts of omission and commission prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, in breach of professional standards and investigative requirements of law, during the course of the investigation by the investigating agency, expert witnesses and even the witnesses cited by the prosecution. Further, the Courts would be fully justified in directing the disciplinary authorities to take appropriate disciplinary or other action in accordance with law, whether such officer, expert or employee witness, is in service or has since retired.
Dereliction of duty or carelessness is an abuse of discretion under a definite law and misconduct is a violation of indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act whereas dereliction of duty is the forbidden quality of an act and is necessarily indefinite. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily an abuse of discretion. This Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable [(1992) 4 SCC 54] stated that the ambit of these expressions had to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context where the term occurs, regard being given to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.
Dereliction of duty or carelessness is an abuse of discretion under a definite law and misconduct is a violation of indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act whereas dereliction of duty is the forbidden quality of an act and is necessarily indefinite. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily an abuse of discretion. This Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable [(1992) 4 SCC 54] stated that the ambit of these expressions had to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context where the term occurs, regard being given to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.
Supreme Court of India
Dayal Singh & Ors. vs State Of Uttaranchal on 3 August, 2012
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla.
Citation: (2012) 8 SCC 263,
