respondents has submitted that the petitioner was associated before the report was submitted by the Fact Finding inquiry committee, however, it is not disputed that the Commission failed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before making its recommendations/directions. In fact, this issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed in Jagbati v. State of Haryana and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 12804 of 2021, decided on 23.09.2024) , Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Others v. Punjab State Human Rights Commission and Others 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 552 and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) Patna and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others . Though the learned senior counsel representing the private respondents has submitted that the hearing is required only when the conduct of any person is being inquired into, however, Section 16 is in two parts. Clause (a) provides the requirement of hearing when the Commission decides to inquire into the conduct of any person. Clause (b) provides for granting an opportunity of hearing when the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected. From the directions/recommendations, it is evident that the Commission has directed the disciplinary action against the various police officials including the petitioner, registration of case regarding loss of mobile of Smt.Nisha Singh, inquiry regarding beating of Nisha be conducted by CB/CID and further investigation of FIR No. 428 of 2015, Police Station Sadar, Gurugram, by CB/CID. Thus, the Commission has inquired into the conduct of the petitioner and such order is likely to prejudicially affect the reputation of the petitioner.
