The Rajasthan High Court ordered disciplinary inquiry against Tehsildar Tejpal Pareek for allegedly not releasing a detainee despite suspension of sentence. The Court directed him to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation and kept him attached to revenue headquarters until completion of the investigation.
The Rajasthan High Court has directed initiation of a disciplinary inquiry against a tehsildar for allegedly failing to release a man from civil custody even after a competent authority had suspended his sentence in a land encroachment case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal also ordered the officer, Tejpal Pareek, to pay compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the detainee, who has now been released. The Court made it clear that the compensation amount would not be paid by the State government.
The Court ordered the departmental inquiry to determine whether Pareek intentionally ignored the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, which had suspended the detainee’s sentence. Until the inquiry is completed, the officer will remain attached to the revenue headquarters.
The matter came before the High Court through a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee’s wife after authorities failed to release him despite the suspension order dated April 15.
The case originated from an allegation of encroachment on government land. After proceedings before the revenue authorities, the detainee was found guilty and sentenced to three months of civil imprisonment under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. His appeal before the District Collector was dismissed.
Later, the Additional Divisional Commissioner suspended the sentence on April 15 after the detainee agreed to remove the alleged encroachment. However, despite the suspension order, he continued to remain in custody, prompting his wife to approach the High Court.
Following the Court’s intervention, the detainee was released on June 8. In its final order passed on June 12, the Court noted that the man had allegedly remained in unlawful custody for 53 days. The Bench also took note of the fact that the detainee suffers from HIV, while his wife is battling cancer.
The Bench observed,
“The detenue required continuous treatment for HIV, while the petitioner-wife, a cancer patient, was simultaneously deprived of the companionship, care and support of her husband. The consequences of the illegal detention, therefore, were not confined merely to a deprivation of physical liberty; they extended into the realm of human suffering, medical vulnerability and familial distress,”
The High Court rejected the tehsildar’s explanation that he was unaware of the suspension order. The Bench noted that orders passed by appellate authorities are generally communicated to subordinate officials and proceedings are conducted in the presence of government representatives.
The Court further pointed out that even according to Pareek’s own statement, he became aware of the suspension order on June 1. Despite gaining knowledge, he allegedly failed to take any action for another seven days to secure the detainee’s release.
The Bench said,
“This continued detention, in the face of admitted knowledge, is not merely an administrative failure. It is a conscious, deliberate, and wilful deprivation of personal liberty in defiance of the order of a superior authority. It is, in the language of constitutional law, a gross violation of Article 21,”
Expressing strong disapproval of the officer’s conduct, the Court said it had rarely come across a situation where a revenue official continued to keep a “sick and helpless” person in custody despite a superior authority suspending the sentence, repeated requests by the detainee’s wife, and the filing of a habeas corpus petition.
The Court remarked,
“The stubbornness, the obstinacy, the contumacious defiance of the rule of law exhibited by respondent No. 4 (teshildar) in these proceedings is of a character and degree that this Court has not previously encountered and hopes never to encounter again,”
ALSO READ: Mere Apprehension of Repeat Offences Cannot Justify Preventive Detention: Supreme Court
The Bench further criticized the officer’s actions, stating:
“An officer of this character is not merely a liability to the revenue administration. He is a threat to civil society. He is a threat to the constitutional order. He is a threat to the very idea that government is accountable to the governed.”
The Court observed that an official displaying such disregard for lawful directions could misuse official records, revenue documents, and administrative powers entrusted to him.
Concluding the proceedings, the High Court held that the detainee’s custody after June 1 was illegal. However, it clarified that the exact period of unlawful detention would depend upon the outcome of the departmental inquiry.
The Court ruled,
“In view of the foregoing discussion, findings, and directions, this Court is satisfied that the continued detention of the detenue after suspension of his sentence was wholly unjustified and constituted a grave infringement of his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,”
Advocate Jogendra Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Deepak Choudhary represented the State.