Criminal Liability For Dereliction Of Duty By Public Officials

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

Criminal Liability for Dereliction of Duty by Public Officials

1. Meaning of Dereliction of Duty

Dereliction of duty by a public official means failure to perform an act or duty that is required by law, intentionally or with gross negligence. It amounts to misconduct and, in some cases, criminal liability when such failure results in harm to the public interest, corruption, or loss to the government.

This liability arises mainly under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and related service and disciplinary laws.

2. Legal Provisions Involved

a. Section 166 IPC

“Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.”

If a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause injury, he commits an offence.

Punishment: Simple imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.

b. Section 217 IPC

“Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment.”

If a public servant, being legally bound as such to act in a particular manner, knowingly disobeys such direction to save a person from legal punishment, he commits an offence.

Punishment: Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.

c. Section 218 IPC

“Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture.”

This section applies to manipulation of official records or dereliction involving false documentation.

d. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sec. 13(1)(d))

If a public servant abuses his position to obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

Even passive inaction or failure to discharge duty honestly can amount to “criminal misconduct” under this section.

3. Case Laws on Criminal Liability for Dereliction of Duty

Let’s discuss five key judgments where courts elaborated on the concept and imposed criminal liability or discussed limits of such liability.

Case 1: State of Kerala v. P. Vijayan (1999) 2 SCC 353

Facts:
A police officer failed to register an FIR despite receiving information about a cognizable offence. The accused later destroyed evidence. The question was whether the officer’s inaction constituted criminal misconduct.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that deliberate failure to perform a statutory duty (registering FIR) amounts to dereliction of duty. If such failure is intentional and designed to protect offenders, it attracts Section 217 IPC.

Principle:
Public officials are criminally liable if they intentionally fail to perform statutory obligations, particularly in criminal investigation duties.

Case 2: S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 2 SCC 400

Facts:
A municipal officer ignored repeated complaints about unsafe building construction, which later collapsed and caused deaths.

Held:
The Court held the officer guilty of criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. Though not directly corrupt, his gross inaction amounted to criminal breach of public trust.

Principle:
Negligence that is so gross that it shows a disregard for life and safety can lead to criminal liability even without corrupt motive.

Case 3: State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew (2004) 8 SCC 40

Facts:
A public servant was accused of intentionally omitting to perform certain duties in a government contract, causing loss to the state exchequer.

Held:
The Supreme Court clarified that mere negligence or error of judgment is not enough to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There must be mens rea (intent) or deliberate misconduct.

Principle:
Criminal liability for dereliction arises only when there is intentional or willful failure, not mere inefficiency.

Case 4: Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1

Facts:
A Chief Minister was accused of abusing his official position to allot property and contracts improperly. One issue was whether his omissions and misuse of authority amounted to criminal misconduct.

Held:
The Court held that misuse or willful non-performance of duty for personal or third-party benefit is criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Principle:
When dereliction of duty is coupled with abuse of authority or dishonest intent, it crosses into criminal misconduct.

Case 5: Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1

Facts:
Police authorities refused to register an FIR despite clear evidence of a cognizable offence.

Held:
The Constitution Bench held that registration of FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence. Failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty and can invite disciplinary and criminal proceedings under Section 166A IPC.

Principle:
Public servants (especially police) are criminally liable for non-performance of statutory duties when their omission hampers justice.

Case 6: State of Maharashtra v. Om Prakash Sharma (2006) 9 SCC 501

Facts:
An excise officer failed to check illegal liquor operations despite repeated warnings. His negligence caused loss of revenue and harm to the public.

Held:
The Court observed that continued deliberate inaction in the face of knowledge of illegality can constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Principle:
If a public official’s inaction facilitates an illegal act, it is equivalent to active participation in corruption.

4. Key Takeaways

Principle	Explanation	Relevant Section/Case
Intentional Omission	Liability arises when omission is deliberate, not accidental.	State of Kerala v. P. Vijayan
Gross Negligence	Negligence so serious it endangers public welfare can attract criminal charges.	S.P. Bhatnagar v. State of Maharashtra
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)	There must be intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.	State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew
Abuse of Authority	Dereliction for personal gain = criminal misconduct.	Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab
Statutory Duty of Police	Failure to register FIR = criminal dereliction.	Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.

5. Conclusion

Criminal liability for dereliction of duty by public officials depends on:

Existence of a legal duty imposed by law,

Knowledge and intentional violation of that duty, and

Resultant harm to public interest or benefit to an offender.

The courts maintain a balance — punishing intentional misconduct but protecting honest errors or administrative inefficiency. Thus, willful dereliction of duty undermines the rule of law and attracts criminal prosecution under IPC Sections 166, 217, 218, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.