सव भव तु सिखनः ु Annual Report 2022-23 However, the Commission disagreed with the PSPCL's conten on and held the Corpora on liable for negligence. It was observed that the accused JE was an employee of PSPCL and had engaged the deceased for work on an 11kv Feeder belonging to PSPCL. The PSPCL's knowledge about the deceased's engagement strengthened the case of negligence against them. The PSPCL also claimed that there was a mutual agreement between the NoK of the deceased and accused JE not to ini ate any legal ac on. However, the Commission deemed this agreement void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It was evident from the records that departmental ac on had been ini ated against the accused JE, further confirming negligence. Consequently, the Commission issued a show cause no ce to the Government of Punjab, as to why the Commission should not recommend a compensa on of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) to the NoK of the deceased. In response, PSPCL acknowledged negligence on the part of the concerned JE and ini ated a departmental enquiry against him. Upon considering the response, the Commission found PSPCL vicariously liable for the death due to negligence. The pending trial under Sec on 304 IPC did not absolve PSPCL from compensa ng the NoK of the deceased. The Commission confirmed its show cause no ce and directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, to release compensa on of Rs. 5,00,000 to the NoK of the deceased. In pursuance to the above, PSPCL complied with the recommenda on and paid the compensa on to the wife of the deceased. As the recommenda on had been complied with, the case was closed on 20 March 2023. 22.) Unlawful Deten on of Woman for Three Years Due to Mistaken Iden ty by Police in Kokrajhar, Assam (Case No: 137/3/11/2019) The Commission received a complaint on 29 June 2019, alleging that the vic m was unlawfully detained by the border branch of the Assam Police in 2016 due to mistaken iden ty. She was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal and detained at Kokrajhar Deten on Centre in Assam. The Commission took cognizance of this ma er and relevant reports were received from the authori es concerned. A report from Superintendent of Police revealed that she had been erroneously detained by the border branch of the Assam Police on 18 November 2016, 38 due to a case of mistaken iden ty. Despite possessing all the necessary documents and records, the authori es in the border branch failed to acknowledge her claims or review the documents and records presented by her brother. The Commission observed that the admission of illegal deten on by state authori es established a blatant viola on of the vic m's human rights and her unjus fied curtailment of freedom for three years. The Commission noted that the State bears the responsibility to compensate the vic m for the damages she endured. Thus, the Commission issued a Show Cause no ce under Sec on 18 of the PHRA to the Government of Assam through its Chief Secretary, inquiring why the Commission should not recommend a compensa on of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) for the vic m. In response, the Under Secretary, Poli cal (A) Department, Dispur, Government of Assam, forwarded a detailed report which revealed that a total of 13 police officials, including Inspector, were found guilty. Disciplinary ac on was ini ated against five of the implicated officials, and the Superintendent of Police, was instructed to ini ate departmental proceedings against the remaining individuals. Upon reviewing the report, it was noted that disciplinary ac on had been ini ated against the erring police officials. However, the report did not address the Show Cause no ce under Sec on 18 of the PHRA, indica ng that the concerned authority had no objec ons to the no ce issued by the Commission. Consequently, the Show Cause no ce and recommenda on were confirmed. Following subsequent direc ves, the Commission received a communica on from the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Poli cal (A) Department, confirming the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensaon to the vic m. Given these developments, no further interven on by the Commission was deemed necessary. Consequently, the case was closed on 16 November 2022. 23.) Allega ons of Prisoner Non-release at Central Prison, Bareilly, Utar Pradesh. (Case No: 6969/24/14/2020) The Commission received a complaint on 06 March 2020 from a resident of Lucknow, U ar Pradesh. The complaint highlighted a concerning situa on at the Central Prison in Chapter 7 - Thematic Areas