Mumbai, Feb 16: The Bombay High Court on Friday raised strong concerns over the manner in which disciplinary action was being pursued against police officers accused of ignoring complaints about assaults on an elderly couple, after discovering that it had earlier been misinformed about the punishment said to have been imposed.
A bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Abhay Mantri, while reviewing compliance with its prior order, warned that procedural lapses in the enquiry could ultimately weaken action against the erring officers if subjected to legal challenge.
Petition revisited to record compliance
A special bench was considering a disposed petition placed before it to record compliance with an earlier writ order dated August 19, 2025, which had directed the Commissioner of Police, Thane, to initiate action against erring officers.
The case stems from a plea filed by the daughter of the elderly couple, alleging that her brother repeatedly beat their parents and that officers of a police station in Dombivli failed to register an FIR despite complaints and CCTV evidence.
Earlier submission on punishment
The court noted that when the matter earlier came before a bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and RR Bhonsale, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) had submitted that punishment of stoppage of increments for two years had been imposed on the concerned officers. The bench had then observed that the punishment “may not be proportionate”.
Clarification by prosecution
However, during the latest hearing, the APP clarified that no punishment had yet been imposed and that only a show cause notice had been issued after a preliminary enquiry.
Justice Ghuge’s bench recorded that the earlier submission had misinformed the bench. It remarked that had the bench relied on that submission, compliance would have been recorded and the case closed.
Reference to 1956 circular
The judges examined a 1956 Home Department circular permitting stoppage of an increment without a full enquiry in certain cases. They were informed that the officers — Assistant Police Inspector Praveen Ghutugade and another officer — had replied to show cause notices and that a personal hearing was proposed based on a preliminary enquiry report.
Court questions ‘alien procedure’
The bench expressed concern over what it termed an “alien procedure”, after being told that the Joint Commissioner would conduct the hearing while the Commissioner would pass the final order. It warned that “procedural loopholes” could advantage erring officers if disciplinary action were challenged.
Directions to police commissioner
Reiterating its earlier directions, the court said the police commissioner must personally hear the officers and proceed strictly under applicable service rules. It directed that fresh notices be issued to the officers and the commissioner pass an order after giving them a hearing.
Also Watch:
Warning on proportionality of punishment
Underscoring its stance, the bench said it would intervene if the eventual punishment appeared minor or disproportionate, observing: “if we are convinced that an alien procedure has been followed, we would direct the Commissioner of Police to restart the enquiry against the two officers strictly in accordance with the applicable procedure.”
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
