Departmental Proceedings, Even If Harsh Cannot Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Bombay High Court Discharges Accused

If a departmental enquiry, even if harsh or unpleasant is initiated against an employee, the same cannot amount to 'abetting' the person's suicide, the Bombay High Court held earlier this week, while discharging four employees of an Ashram School, booked for 'conspiring' to falsely implicate a fellow teacher of the school in a case leading to his suicide.

Single-judge Justice Amit Borkar quashed the proceedings initiated against Milind Parad and Shamrao Sable (both teachers) and Baby Jadhav (cook) and her brother Sitaram Jadhav, all accused of conspiring to falsely implicate the deceased Shivaji Gade, in a case of demanding 'illicit relations' from Baby. 

According to the prosecution case, the four accused along with another co-accused, hatched a conspiracy and made Baby to complain to her superiors about the alleged misconduct on part of Gade of asking her to maintain 'illicit relations' with him by entering into her house in the middle of the night on the pretext of asking for water. He however, apologised to Baby but due to her complaint departmental enquiry was initiated against him.

The judge noted the argument put forth by the prosecution that the deceased was a teacher with a good background and reputation, and that the accused persons unnecessarily continued the proceedings against him even after he apologised. It was also argued that this caused mental pressure and trauma.

"This submission does have some emotional appeal. However, criminal law cannot proceed only on such considerations. Even if it is accepted that the deceased felt humiliated, the law still requires proof of intention on the part of the accused to drive him to suicide, or at least conduct which is so direct and proximate that such consequence becomes a natural result. A departmental inquiry, even if strict or unpleasant, is still part of a lawful process. It cannot automatically be treated as abetment," Justice Borkar held in the April 8 order. 

The judge underlined that there must be a clear and active role of instigation and in the facts of the case, the judge added that there must be something more than continuation of proceedings, which is missing in the instant case.

The judge took into account the testimony of some witnesses, one who stated that he had offered water to the deceased but he refused to drink water and insisted to know the staff quarters, where Baby lived. Another witness testified that he saw Baby in a frightened condition and later the deceased touching her feet apologising to her. 

"This part is important. It shows that the deceased was making a conscious choice. He did not simply act out of immediate necessity like thirst. He refused water and chose to go elsewhere. Thereafter, as stated, he went towards Baby's house. This conduct appears deliberate," the judge said. 

As regards the frightened condition of Baby, the judge said, "This suggests that something unexpected had happened from her point of view. These statements do not support the theory that the accused persons had planned to falsely implicate the deceased. Rather, they suggest that an incident took place and the complaint followed that incident."

The bench noted the prosecution's contention that the deceased was embarrassed and was discomforted post the incident as alleged by Baby. 

"Mere embarrassment or shame cannot be treated as abetment of suicide. There must be something more serious. There must be a clear act or conduct which directly pushes a person to take such extreme step. That necessary connection is not seen here. The material stops at showing an incident and its consequences. It does not go further to show legal abetment," the judge held. 

With these observations, the judge quashed the criminal proceedings and discharged all the four accused from the case. 

Appearance:

Advocates Lakshyaved Odhekar and Omkar Mhasde appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Megha Bajoria represented the State.

Case Title: Milind Anantrao Parad vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 1918 of 2015)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 180

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment