584. Police officers will always be protected when it appears to the Government that they have acted in good faith, but the Government will not bind themselves to undertake their defence when this is not the case.
585. Criminal prosecution of police officers for minor offences, which can be dealt with in disciplinary proceedings, should not be resorted to as a matter of course, but only taken in serious cases.
586. The following instructions regulate the provision of legal and financial assistance to police officers involved in legal proceedings.
587. Legal proceedings in which the police officers are likely to be involved may be classified as follows :
(a) Proceedings, civil or criminal, instituted by Government in respect of matters connected with official duties or the position of a police officer ;
(b) Proceedings by a police officer against a private party or vice versa in respect of matters not connected with his official duty or position ;
(c) Proceedings by a private party against a police officer in respect of matters connected with his official duties or position ;
(d) Proceedings by a police officer to vindicate his official conduct when called upon by Government to do so ; and
(e) Proceedings instituted by a police officer suo moto to vindicate his conduct connected with his official duties or position with previous sanction of the Government though not required by Government to do so.
588. (i) In cases falling under order 587 (a) the Government will not give any assistance to a police officer for his defence in any proceedings, civil or criminal, instituted against him by the State in respect of matters arising out of or connected with his official duties or his official position. Should, however, the proceedings conclude in favour of the police officer, the Government will entertain his claim for reimbursement of costs incurred by him for his defence, and if Government are satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the police officer was subjected to the strain of the proceedings without proper justification, they will consider whether the whole or any reasonable proportion of the expenses incurred by the police officer for his defence should be reimbursed to him.
(ii) In cases falling under order 587 (b), the government will not give any assistance to a police officer or reimburse the expenditure incurred by him in the conduct of the proceedings in respect of matters not arising out of or connected with, his official duties or his official position, irrespective of whether the proceedings were instituted by a private party against the police officer or vice versa.
(iii) (a) In cases falling under order 587 (c), if the Government, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, considers that it will be in the public interest that the Government should themselves undertake the defence of the police officer in such proceedings and if the police officer agrees to such a course, the police officer should be required to make a statement in writing, as in the form below this order and thereafter, the Government will make arrangements for the conduct of the proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted against Government-
FORM
"(Here enter description of the proceedings). The Government of Karnataka having been pleased to undertake my defence in the above proceedings, I hereby agree to render such assistance to Government as may be required for my defence and further agree that I shall not hold Government in any way responsible if the proceedings end in a decision adverse to me.
Place :
Date : Signature of the Police Officer "
(b) If, in such cases, the police officer proposes to conduct his defence himself, the question of reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by him for his defence, may be considered in case the proceedings conclude in his favour. In determining the amount of costs to be reimbursed on the conclusion of the proceedings, the Government will consider to what extent the court has vindicated the act of the police officer in the proceedings.
(c) The conclusion of the proceedings in favour of the police officer will not by itself justify reimbursement.
(d) To enable the police officer to meet the expenses of his defence, the Government may sanction, at their discretion, an interest-free advance not exceeding Rs.5000 or three months' substantive pay, whichever is less, after obtaining from the police officer a bond in the form given below. The amount advanced would be subject to adjustment against the amount, if any, to be reimbursed by Government under sub-clause (ii) of this order.
FORM OF BOND
"By this bond, I ....................................................................(here give the name and other particulars of the police officer including the post held by him) acknowledge myself bound to the Government of Karnataka in the sum of Rs....................(Here enter a sum representing double the amount advanced) to the said Government.
Now the above written bond is conditioned to be void in case the above bounden (Police Officer) or his personal representatives or assignee or their attorney authorised to receive the same, the said sum of Rs............but in the event of the above bounden (police officer) or his personal representatives or any person acting for and on his behalf failing to pay the said sum on demand, the above-written bond shall remain in force and effect.
Dated this the ...........................................................day of ...............199....
Witnesses :
1.
2.
Signature of the Police Officer.
(e) The police officer may also be granted an advance from the provident fund to which he is a subscriber not exceeding three months' pay or one-half of the balance standing to his credit, whichever is less. This advance will be repayable in accordance with the rules of the fund.
(iv) In cases falling under order 587 (d), a police officer may be required to vindicate his conduct in a court of law in certain circumstances. The question whether costs incurred by the police officer, in such cases, should be reimbursed by the Government and if so, to what extent, should be left over for consideration in the light of the result of the proceedings. In determining the amount of costs to be reimbursed on the conclusion of the proceedings, the Government will consider to what extent the court has vindicated the act of the police officer in the proceedings. Conclusion of the proceedings in favour of the police officer will not by itself justify reimbursement.
(v) In cases falling under order 587 (e), if a police officer resorts to a court of law with the previous sanction of Government to vindicate his conduct arising out of or connected with his official duties or position, though not required to do so by Government, he is not entitled to any assistance and no part of the expenses incurred by the police officer will be reimbursed to him, even if he succeeds in the proceedings.
(vi) In cases falling under clauses (d) and (e) of order 587, the Government may, however, sanction an interest-free advance of an amount considered by Government as necessary, to enable a police officer to meet the expenses of such legal proceedings, on the execution of a bond in the form prescribed under order 588 (iii) (d) above. The amount of installments of recovery, their number and periodicity will be fixed by the Government.
(vii) The power of granting assistance under these instructions is reserved with the Government.
589. For reimbursement of legal expenses in respect of cases falling under order 588 (i), clause (b) of order 588 (iii) and order 588 (iv), the following procedure should be followed.
(i) Where an accused/respondent police officer has undertaken his defence at his own expense and if the judicial proceedings conclude in his favour, he may submit his claims for reimbursement of the legal expenses, through proper channel, to the Superintendent of the district or other unit officer concerned, under whom he is serving, along with the following particulars :
1) A statement furnishing full facts of the case ;
2) A copy of the judgement passed by the trying judge or magistrate, as the
case may be;
3) A copy of the order sheet ;
4) (a) total number of adjournments with dates ;
(b) of which, number of adjournments allowed at the instance of the
accused police officer, with reasons ;
(c) Number of adjournments obtained by the complainant or plaintiff;
5) Date or dates on which the case was heard and evidence was recorded;
6) Dates on which the case was argued;
7) Date of pronouncement of the judgement;
8) Amount of cost, damages or compensations, if any, awarded to the
accused/respondent police officer by the court.
9) A bill in duplicate of the counsel who appeared on behalf of the
accused/respondent police officer.
(ii) On receipt of such claims, the Superintendent or the other unit officer should examine the judgement in detail and forward the claims to the Director General, through the Range Inspector General with his report, specifying as to whether the claims of the accused/respondent police officer deserve consideration and if so, to what extent the legal expenses could be reimbursed. While forwarding the report of the Superintendent, he in consultation with the Public Prosecutor or the district Government Pleader, as the case may be should also give his specific opinion in the matter. Likewise, the Range Inspector General should furnish his remarks. After examining the reports of all these officers, the Director General will forward the claims of the accused/respondent police officer to Government, with his remarks whether the case deserves consideration and if so, the extent to which the legal expenses could be reimbursed to the accused/respondent police officer.
(iii) In the case of police officers of Bangalore City, Intelligence, CID, Railways, Wireless, KSRP and other special units , the Commissioner or the concerned Deputy Inspector General or the highest controlling officer of that Unit, as the case may be, should take action as indicated above.
CIVIL SUITS OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS
590. In the case of a civil suit or criminal prosecution launched or threatened to be launched against a police officer in connection with the discharge of his official functions, the following procedure should be adopted :
(1) PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED WHEN THERE IS A THREAT OF A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
(a) A Police Officer who receives any communication containing a threat of civil or criminal proceedings against him for acts done in his official capacity should forward forthwith, through the proper channel, a copy of such communication, intimating whether he wishes to reply thereto or not, and if he proposes to send a reply, submitting the proposed reply to his Unit officer.
(b) The Unit Officer who receives the communication along with the explanation should send the same with his observations to the Director General through the Range Inspector General, and the Director General will forward the same to the Government, i.e., Home Department. The Home Department will examine the draft reply and then send the same to the Law Department for their opinion and also for action, which will make the legal assistance available, if it is a fit case to be defended.
(c) The question of defending at the cost of the Government, a Police Officer who has received a communication containing a threat of legal proceedings need not ordinarily be taken up till the proceedings have been actually instituted. If, however, in criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings the DGP considers that the proceedings are likely to be instituted against a Police Officer, he may examine the question as soon as he receives a copy of the communication from the concerned Officer.
As per article 146 B of the Karnataka Financial Code, any case of proceedings by a private party against a Government servant in respect of matters connected with his official duty or position, if the Government, on consideration of the facts, circumstances decides that it will be in public interest that the Government servant should be defended by the Government, and the Government servant agrees to such a course, arrangements will be made for the conduct of the proceedings as if they had been instituted against the Government themselves.
If in such cases the Government servant proposes to conduct his defence himself the question of reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by him therefor may be considered on the conclusion of the proceedings in his favour.
(2) PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN A CIVIL SUIT OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED
(a) Whenever a civil suit or criminal proceedings is launched against a Police Officer, the Superintendent of Police or the Unit Officer will examine the following points before recommending legal assistance to the Government:
(i) Whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation;
(ii) Whether prior sanction of the Government under sub section (I) of Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act has been obtained;
(iii) Whether prior notice with sufficient description of the wrong complained of has been given under sub section (ii) of the said section;
(iv) Whether the requirements of sub section (iii) of section 170 have been complied with.
(b) If the suit has been instituted contrary to these provisions he will immediately direct the concerned subordinate Police Officer to request the court to dismiss it on these grounds. If, however, the provisions of the sections have been complied with then the Unit Officer shall forward the report to the Director General for further action regarding obtaining legal assistance.
(c) Whenever the Unit Officer concerned considers that the Police Officer involved either in a civil suit or in a criminal prosecution deserves to be given State aid, an undertaking in the form prescribed under clause (a) sub order (iii) of Order 588 should be taken from the Police Officer concerned and sent along with his report to be sent under sub orders (ii) and (iii) of Order 590.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL SUITS AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
591. (1) If the Government sanctions the defence of an officer, it would ordinarily be sufficient to engage a Government Pleader or a Public Prosecutor at the expense of the State. In criminal cases in which a private counsel has to be engaged, a daily fee subject to a maximum for the whole case will be fixed by the Government.
(2) In civil suits also in which a private counsel has to be engaged, the Government will fix a daily fee subject to the maximum for the whole case. In petty cases, appearance in person may be often quite sufficient and where this is so, the employment of a pleader is superfluous.
(3) In cases falling under sub-orders (1) or (2) of this order, the fees payable will be settled and got approved by the Government prior to the engagement of the private counsel.
(4) The rate of fees payable to such counsel should not normally exceed the rates payable to Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors fixed by the Government from time to time. Government, however, may fix higher rates of fees in cases of unusual type where marked ability and industry are required to be put in by a Government Pleader or a Public Prosecutor.
(5) In cases where a Government Pleader or a Public Prosecutor is required to go outside his district as per orders of the Government, he will be paid travelling allowance and halting allowance at the rates mentioned for category II officers under rule 451 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The fees in such cases will normally be at the scheduled rates, unless the Government fixes higher fees in consideration of the nature of work and the number of days sent outside on duty.
592. If the police officer wins the case, and cost, damages or compensation (whether as personal solatius or not) are or is awarded to him, the expenditure incurred by the Government up to the limit of such costs, damages or compensation should be refunded by him.
NOTE - Pleader's fee and incidental expenses will ordinarily be sanctioned only after the costs awarded by the court are recovered because even in the process of recovery of costs, the pleader may incur some expenses and it is convenient to sanction the whole expenditure together. If there is a special case to sanction the expenditure before the costs awarded by the court are recovered, the matter should be clearly explained.
593. If in a civil or criminal proceeding instituted against a police officer, the court decides in his favour, but an appeal is filed or other proceedings taken to secure a reversal or modification of the decision, the question whether such appeal or proceedings should be resisted at the cost of the State will be decided by the Government in accordance with the following instruction:
594. If, in a case in which the Government have undertaken the defence of an officer, the decision of the court is against him, the questions :
(i) Whether an appeal should be filed or whether any proceeding should be taken at the cost of the State to secure a reversal or modification of the decision; and
(ii) Whether any damages awarded to the plaintiff or any fine imposed upon the officer should be paid by the State, shall be decided either on the application of the officer concerned who should move his immediate superior in the matter or on the representation of his superior officer. In either case, orders of the Government should be obtained and the procedure laid down in sub-orders (2) and (3) of order 577, as the case may be, should in other respects be followed.
595. (i) When a police officer undertakes journeys during suspension for appearing in a court of law, as an accused, and is later on acquitted by the court and reinstated in service or would have been reinstated in service but for death or his having attained the age of superannuation or being allowed to retire voluntarily, travelling allowance as for a journey on tour, based on the grade to which the police officer belonged immediately before suspension, may be reimbursed by the Government provided the legal expenses incurred by him in defending such proceedings are reimbursed to him, in full or part, by the Government, under article 320(3) (d) of the constitution. In cases where the journeys were performed by the police officer by rail/steamer in a class lower than the class to which he was entitled before suspension, the fares of the class actually used, in addition to his other entitlements of travelling allowance as on tour, may be paid to him.
(ii) In cases of police officers involved in several types of legal proceedings mentioned in order 587, reimbursement or travelling expenses should be regulated in the following manner:
(a) In cases falling under clauses (a) and (d) of order 587, travelling expense may be granted in accordance with sub-order (i) of this order.
(b) In cases falling under clauses (b) and (c) of order 587 no travelling expenses will be paid.
(c) (i) In cases covered by clause (c) of the said order, travelling allowance as for a journey on tour may be paid to the police officer concerned, if the Government undertakes the defence of the police officer.
(ii) In cases where the police officer concerned proposes to undertake his defence in such cases, travelling allowance may be paid to him as laid down in sub-order (i) of this order subject to the further condition that the travelling expenses are not decreed by the court of law as payable by the plaintiff.
596. As legal proceedings against police officers, particularly civil suits, interfere with the discharge of their public duties and are likely to cause harassment to them, the Unit Officer should impress on the counsel appearing for the officer concerned that he should request the court to deal with such proceedings with utmost possible expedition.
597. (a) False and malicious allegations of corruption are often made against police officers with a view to hampering and embarrassing them in the proper discharge of their duties. In order to protect the police officers from such allegations, the police officers concerned will be given such legal assistance as may be necessary to enable them to take effective action against those making the allegations. When there is good reason to believe that the allegations made against a police officer are false and malicious and he wishes to take legal proceedings against the person making them, the Unit Officers should take action as indicated in the earlier paragraphs, to obtain legal assistance from the Government. Where the person defamed is himself the Director General or the Superintendent or other Unit Officer the same procedure should be followed to obtain the sanction of the State Government.
(b) The Superintendent and other unit officers should bring down in their jurisdictions, the tendency of lodging false and frivolous complaints against police officers serving under them, by taking appropriate legal action against the persons making false allegations.
(c) If a complaint against a police officer is false, the police officer or the counsel for him, should after the conclusion of the enquiry or trial, as the case may be, and before the pronouncement of the judgement, press the court for recording a finding and for awarding compensation under the provisions of section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(d) In all such cases ending in discharge or acquittal, if there are good grounds justifying the prosecution of the complainants, it is within the competence of the courts to make complaints for an offence under section 182 or 211 IPC.
(e) The accused police officer or his counsel, as the case may be, should take prompt action in all such cases to move the court by means of an application, to take action against the complainant under section 182 of 211 IPC.
598. The Superintendent of the district or other unit officer or the Director General, as the case may be, on noticing any article in the press defaming a police officer in his charge for an act done by him in discharge of his duties, scrutinise the defamatory article and decide after proper enquiry if proceedings could be instituted against the person or persons responsible for the article. If such a course of action is decided upon, the Government should be moved through the proper channel to direct the Public Prosecutor under sub-clause (b) of clause 4 of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make a complaint in the court of session. The process should be gone through as expeditiously as possible so that the complaint when lodged will be within the limitation prescribed under clause (5) of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
INSTITUTION AT STATE COST OF CIVIL SUITS OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BY POLICE OFFICERS
599. The institution at the cost of the State of civil suits or prosecutions by police officers requires the sanction of the Government in each case. The sanction of Government should be obtained separately in respect of appeals or other proceedings arising out of a suit or prosecution.
600. (i) The institution of a civil suit on behalf of the State requires the sanction of the Government. In all such suits and in suits by or against police officers which go to Government for sanction, the plaints and written statement should, except in cases of emergency, be got approved by the Government before they are filed. After the approval has been obtained the Director General or any other officer specially authorised can act in this behalf further on behalf of the Government by signing plaints and if acquainted with the facts of the case, by verifying the pleadings. If a civil suit is instituted against the State in connection with a matter concerning the Police Department, the Superintendent or the Commissioner, as the case may be, will refer the matter to the Director General for orders, who will move the Government to secure the services of the Government Pleader.
(ii) Cases where legal advice to be obtained in regard to litigation affecting the State :
(a) It is desirable that, in regard to litigation by or against the State, legal advice is always obtained before a suit is instituted or the defence of a suit undertaken on behalf of the State.
(b) The Director General is entitled to seek the advice of the Advocate General and other Law Officers in the City, but if he desires to obtain the opinion of the Advocate General, he should address Government in the administrative department and not seek his advice direct.
(c) In cases where a notice involving a question of the validity of any Central enactment, etc., is served, a copy of the petition and affidavit should be forwarded through the proper channel to the Government of India in the administrative department concerned and also to the officer of the Central Government primarily concerned, and they may be asked to give the necessary instructions for preparing the counter-affidavit and they may also be informed which law officer of the State Government is dealing with the case so that they may correspond with him direct. A copy of such communication should also be sent to the law officer concerned.
601. (1) The Government have issued the following instructions in regard to writ petitions filed against the Government and other officers of the department concerned:
(a) Whenever any officer is served with notice in writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, he should send forthwith the following records through proper channel to the Director General who will send his report to the Government :-
(i) The copies of writ petition, affidavit and enclosures received from the High Court (if the officer desires to have copies of these documents for his record, he may get copies made and retain the copies so made);
(ii) The records available with him, which pertain to the writ petition.
(iii) A written brief furnishing facts of the case categorically meeting each of the allegations of facts and contentions raised in the writ petition. In this brief, the officer may state whether each of the allegations in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition is true or false and if it is false, what the facts are. the officer may also briefly indicate how the impugned order or action can be justified.
(b) While forwarding the report referred to in clauses (a) of this order, the officer concerned should prepare sufficient number of copies of the writ petition, affidavit and enclosures referred to in clause (a) (i) of sub-order (1) and written brief referred to in clause (a) (iii) of the sub-order for the use of higher officers through whom the report is sent and also for supply of copies of the same to Government (three copies - one for the Home Department, one for the Law Department and the other copy for the use of the Advocate General, Bangalore).
(c) As soon as a notice of writ petition and affidavit is received by an officer, it is necessary to obtain specific sanction of the Government in the Law Department, authorising either the Advocate General, Bangalore, Government Advocate, or a High Court Government Pleader, as the circumstances of the case may warrant to appear on behalf of the Government and other respondent officers of the department and challenge the writ petition in the High Court. For this purpose, the officer who receives the notice, should, immediately on receipt of the same, send his report to the Director General (endorsing copies to the Range Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General and other concerned heads of the range furnishing three copies of the writ petition and affidavit, together with other enclosures, if any, for obtaining necessary sanction of the Government. Thereafter, the report referred to in sub-order (1) (a) of this order should be sent.
(2) Appearance and Preparation of Affidavit in Writs filed against Government and Officers of the Department - In cases where the Government have been impleaded as party and where general issues are involved affecting the policy of the Government, the Government will approve the draft counter-affidavit and swear to it before filing it in the High Court. In other cases involving issues pertaining to the Police Department only or where no general issues are involved, the draft counter-affidavit will be first approved by the Government and then the Deputy Inspector General, Head Quarters, should swear to it on behalf of the Director General or other officers of the department impleaded as respondents and also Government, if the Government is a party to it.
(3) The instructions contained in sub-orders (1) to (2) of this order apply only to cases of writ petitions filed against the Government or the police officers of the department representing the Government such as the Director General, the Commissioner, the Range Inspector General/Deputy Inspector General or the Superintendent, as the case may be, and do not apply to the cases of police officers, who are also made respondents in such writ petitions in their individual capacity, along with the Government. While the defence of the State and other officers representing the Government in such writ petitions may indirectly include the defence of other respondent police officers in their individual capacity, the State cannot identify itself with such individual police officers and make separate arrangements for the defence of each individual. In such cases, the individual police officers affected may make their own arrangements for their defence by engaging their own counsel.
CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF SERVICE AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THEM TO POLICE OFFICERS
602. Police officers should report promptly through their superior officers to the Director General, the full facts regarding any injury sustained by them, whether on or off duty, owing to the negligence of a member or members of the public. The question of instituting a claim for loss of service against the party alleged to be responsible for the injury will be decided by the Government in each case, in consultation with the Law Department.