The complainant (COM), while using her mobile phone outside the scaffoldings of a construction site, got wet as some water and sand debris dropped from the construction site. Noting that her mobile phone which got wet was not working, she entered the construction site and managed to locate male A, the person-in-charge of the construction site, for compensation. She later went to a hospital for medical treatment with the finding of ‘Head Injury’. On the following day, she reported the case to a police station where Detective Senior Police Constable X (DSPC X) took over the investigation. After site enquiry by DSPC X, the person-in-charge of the scaffolding work expressed his willingness to compensate COM and requested to talk with COM regarding the compensation. DSPC X arranged a private talk between COM and male A at the crime office of the police station. DSPC X did not take part in the talk. After settlement of the compensation, COM, in the presence of male A and DSPC X, demanded the Police to take prosecution against the construction site. Amidst his explanation that police prosecutions hinged on evidence available and legal procedures, DSPC X said that ‘the concerned party has agreed to compensate for the damage of your mobile phone, but you want more than that….’. On hearing this, COM became furious and vigorously interrupted the conversation by speaking foul language. COM refused to listen to DSPC X’s further explanation and left the police station immediately afterwards. She alleged that the Police was biased in favour of the construction site (‘Misconduct’). After investigation, the company which carried out the scaffolding work was summonsed under Section 4B, Summary Offences Ordinance.

After investigation, CAPO noted that DSPC X was put in a trying moment during which he had exercised his self-constraint towards COM’s insulting words. Though DSPC X explained that his conversation with COM was interrupted by the latter, as corroborated by male A, CAPO noted that his unpleasant remarks uttered to COM in context, appeared subjective in nature and unnecessary. The allegation of ‘Misconduct’ was therefore ‘Substantiated’ against DSPC X.