Judgment :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged order of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai recommending that the disciplinary authority shall hold Departmental Enquiry into conduct of the petitioner and two others, in accordance with law, and complete the same as early as possible and preferably within three months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the State Human Rights Commission is vitiated since admittedly, as recorded by the Commission itself, the petitioner was not heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commission was bound to hear the petitioner before directing the initiation of enquiry since the proceedings before the Commission are judicial proceedings. 2. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) took cognizance of the complaint of one Nilesh Ojha, President of Mahav Adhikar Suraksha Parishad, Pusad, who complained about the custodial death of one Shankar Ghume, at Wardha District Prison while in illegal detention due to the negligence of three officers of the Police including the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into the details of the custodial death except to observe that the Commission found, after hearing the Collector, Superintendent of Police and Superintendent, District Prison, Wardha that many questions arise regarding action of the police and the Jail authority and that the police should have exercised their discretion to release the deceased on bail, which was granted to him by the Court. The Commission has observed that it is reasonable to believe that the petitioner mechanically passed the order under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and illegally refused the bail. However, without giving any finding whether the petitioner and other Police officers are indeed responsible for the custodial death, the Commission found it appropriate to direct that an enquiry should be held against them in connection with the custodial death in the light of its observations, particularly since the officers, including the petitioner, have not been heard. 3. Having heard the matter, there is no reason for us to hold that the order of the Commission directing the disciplinary authority to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner is vitiated only because the petitioner was not heard. Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which is relevant, reads as follows. “18. 3. Having heard the matter, there is no reason for us to hold that the order of the Commission directing the disciplinary authority to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner is vitiated only because the petitioner was not heard. Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which is relevant, reads as follows. “18. Steps during and after inquiry.- The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:- (a) where the inquiry discloses the commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights or abetment thereof by a public servant, it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority - (i) to make payment of compensation or damages to the complainant or to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (ii) to initiate proceedings for prosecution or such other suitable action as the Commission may deem fit against the concerned person or persons; (iii) to take such further action as it may think fit; (b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as the Court may deem necessary; (c) recommend to the concerned Government or authority at any stage of the inquiry for the grant of such immediate interim relief to the victim or the members of his family as the Commission may consider necessary; (d) subject to the provisions of clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner or his representative; (e) the Commission shall send a copy of its inquiry report together with the recommendations to the concerned Government or authority and the concerned Government or authority shall, within a period of one month, or such further time as the Commission may allow, forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Commission; (f) the Commission shall publish its inquiry report together with the comments of the concerned Government or authority, if any, and the action taken or proposed to be taken by the concerned Government or authority on the recommendations of the Commission.” It is obvious from Sub-Section (ii) above that upon completion of the enquiry before the Commission, which in this case has undoubtedly been completed, the Commission has discretion to recommend the Government or the concerned authority for prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem fit. The words “such other suitable action” in (a) (ii) above, would clearly cover the holding of Departmental Enquiry. 4. The order of the State Human Rights Commission does not hold the petitioner guilty of custodial death but merely directs an enquiry into the matter. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.