IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1877 of 2010 1. PRAMOD KUMAR MANDAL S/O LATE C.S. MANDAL NAKKI NAGAR KESHOPUR, JAMALPUR, MUNGER, BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE HOME SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION THROUGH ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY BIHAR, PATNA 5. SRI ARVIND KUMAR YADAV (CONSTABLE) S/O NOT KNOWN GENERAL SECRETARY, POLICE MENS ASSOCIATION, NEW POLICE LINE, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramakant Singh, Adv. For the State:- S.C.-9 -------------- 2. 6.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the State Human Rights Commission dated 17.11.2009 making recommendation that he should be suspended and departmental proceeding be initiated against him. The second recommendation had become futile as the criminal prosecution is already over in view of order dated 25.6.2010 of the competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been at the receiving end of the order of the Human Rights Commission but he has not been noticed or heard. He filed a review application dated 2 3.12.2009 before the Commission. It has been rejected on 18.12.2009 holding that the order could not be construed as ex-parte, since the order was based on an enquiry report submitted by the D.I.G. who inter alia heard the present petitioner. Learned counsel relies upon Section 16 of the The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter called the Act) which reads as follows:- “16. Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard:- If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission- (a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or (b) is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It shall give to the person a reasonable opportunity to being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence to his defence Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached.” He submits that there was a statutory requirement for a hearing to be given to the petitioner by the State Human Rights Commission. Counsel for the State supported the order from the counter affidavit and the recitals in the impugned order that the petitioner has been heard by the D.I.G. at the stage of enquiry. This Court is satisfied that the impugned recommendation of the State Human Rights Commission 3 dated 17.11.2009 and 18.12.2009 suffers from two vices. The first vice is that it was the Commission who was statutorily required to hear the petitioner. The second vice is that the hearing granted by the D.I.G. to the petitioner was not sufficient compliance of Section 16 of the Act. The basic premise of natural justice that one who heard should pass the order stood violated. It is not permissible for one to grant a hearing and to another pass an order on that hearing. The person passing the order does not have the benefit of appreciation of defence. The impugned orders dated 1711.2009 and 18.12.2009 are set aside. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)