IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13918 of 2009 BIRENDRA PD.SINGH s/o Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, resident of village- Kapari, P.S. Khajhauli, District- Madhubani, at present Assistant Sub Inspector, PS. Arwal, District- Arawal. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Secretary , Bihar Human Right Commission, 9, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Arwal, District- Arwal. 4. The Officer Incharge-cum- Inquiry Officer, P.S. Arwal, District-Arwal. 5. Chabila Singh s/o late Shobhanath Singh, resident of village- Prasadi English, P.S. Arwal, District- Arwal. ----------- 2 26.10.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order dated 20.7.2009 , as passed by the Bihar State Human Right Commission .By the said order, he being an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police has been found guilty of violation of human rights by detaining an old person in custody pursuant to warrant issued by the Court for his appearance as a witness and not as an accused. From the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was noticed but chose not to appear and as such the proceedings proceeded ex parte. On behalf of the petitioner two contentions are raised. Firstly, it is a case of double jeopardy . He submits that on the same allegation a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in which he has been punished .Now, for the same event he is now being penalized by the impugned order to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the victim. Secondly, he submits that notices were issued by the Commission by ordinary post on 19.6.2009. The notice was received by him on duty at Arawal on 17.7.2009. He sent his reply but in the 2 meantime on 20.7.2009 , the order was passed, which was not recalled nor the matter was re-heard in view of his reply. Having considered the matter, in my view, so far as first point is concerned, it merits no consideration. Departmental proceedings and proceedings before the Human Right Commission are two entirely independent proceedings, one arises out of a master servant relationship and a matter of discipline therein and the other is consequence of civil wrong committed and is a matter between wrong and wrongdoer . There cannot be the question of double jeopardy in such a situation. This argument is rejected. So far as second argument is concerned, in my view, from the order itself it is apparent that the petitioner had not been heard. In my view, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if the orders are passed after hearing the parties. No harm would be done if the submissions were to be heard the petitioner and then pass fresh order. That would thus serve the interest of justice greater than passing an ex parte order giving opportunity to the party to raise such submission in a manner as if no hearing was given. In that view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order of the Commission dated 20.7.2009, as contained in Annexure 1 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Human Rights Commission on 3.11.2009 when a fresh date would be fixed in presence of the petitioner and matter heard and decided in accordance with law. The petitioner would fully co-operate in the matter. Let it be recorded that this Court has not gone into the merit of the matter or justifiability of the imposition of penalty or 3 compensation, if any. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application stands disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)