The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that a preliminary enquiry loses its relevance once a regular enquiry is initiated, particularly when a charge sheet is issued to the delinquent officer. In a landmark decision, the Court stated that a major penalty cannot be imposed based on a preliminary enquiry report, especially after the regular enquiry process has begun.
Read Also:- Caste System Not Part of Christianity, SC/ST Act Cannot Be Invoked by Converts: Andhra Pradesh High Court
In this case, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam ruled that a preliminary enquiry cannot be used in a regular enquiry. She highlighted that the Charged Officer or the accused is not involved in the preliminary enquiry, and crucial rights, such as the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, are not granted. This, the Court observed, violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, once the regular enquiry is started by issuing a charge sheet, the preliminary enquiry report loses its significance.
The case in question involved K. Mohan Rao, a Police Constable who faced suspension after an allegation that he, along with two others, had demanded money from an individual, Sri Polumuru Ramarao, who was running a cube game. Though the Enquiry Officer ultimately cleared the petitioner, declaring the charge unproven, the Superintendent of Police in Srikakulam used the preliminary enquiry report to impose a major penalty, including the postponement of his increments and pension.
The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition, arguing that the penalty was unjustified as it was based on the preliminary enquiry report. The respondents, on the other hand, insisted that the petitioner had indeed demanded money from the victim, and the penalty was imposed after giving him the chance to respond to a dissent memo.
However, the Court sided with the petitioner, stating that the preliminary enquiry had no role once the regular enquiry had been initiated. The Court further ruled that the imposition of the major penalty based on the preliminary report violated the natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner for promotion to the Sub-Inspector (Civil) post, giving him all the consequential benefits.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹3.70 Lakh to Family of Deceased Lorry Cleaner After 17-Year Legal Battle
“Once the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge is not proved, the 1st respondent cannot impose the major penalty based on the preliminary report. Since the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular enquiry, as the Charged Officer or the delinquent is not associated with it, and the opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such enquiry is not given. Using of such evidence would be the violation of the principles of natural justice.”
This ruling underlines the significance of adhering to proper procedures and respecting the principles of natural justice when imposing penalties in disciplinary proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Number: W.P.(AT) No.78 of 2021
Case Title: K. Mohan Rao v. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District and others
Date: 08.05.2024
