In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that a preliminary enquiry becomes redundant once a regular departmental enquiry is initiated by issuing a charge sheet. The Court emphasized that imposing a major penalty based solely on the preliminary enquiry report, especially after a regular enquiry has commenced, violates the principles of natural justice.
The case revolved around K. Mohan Rao, a Police Constable in Srikakulam District, who was on the verge of promotion to Sub-Inspector. He was suspended following allegations that he, along with two others, demanded money from an individual named Sri Polumuru Ramarao, who was organizing a cube game. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and Rao was reinstated into service. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to investigate the charges.
The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against Rao were not substantiated. Despite this, the Superintendent of Police (Respondent 1) issued a Dissent Memo based on the preliminary enquiry report prepared by the Inspector of Police. Relying on this preliminary report, the Superintendent imposed a major penalty: postponement of Rao's increment for one year with cumulative effect, affecting future increments and pension. Additionally, the period from February 24, 2012, to September 5, 2012, was treated as 'Not on Duty'.
Rao challenged this decision, arguing that the punishment was unjust, especially since the regular enquiry had exonerated him. He contended that relying on the preliminary enquiry, where he had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense, was a violation of natural justice. His appeals to higher authorities, including the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the Inspector General of Police, and a mercy petition to the State of Andhra Pradesh, were all rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court.
Justice Sumathi Jagadam, presiding over the case, observed that once a regular enquiry is initiated and a charge sheet is issued, the preliminary enquiry loses its relevance. The Court noted that the preliminary enquiry is conducted without associating the charged officer, denying them the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence. Therefore, using findings from such an enquiry in subsequent proceedings contravenes the principles of natural justice.
The Court further stated that if the Enquiry Officer in the regular enquiry finds the charges unproven, the disciplinary authority cannot impose a major penalty based on the preliminary enquiry report. Such an action undermines the fairness of the disciplinary process and disregards the procedural safeguards meant to protect the rights of the accused.
In its judgment, the High Court set aside the punishment imposed on Rao, reinforcing the principle that disciplinary actions must be based on evidence gathered during a fair and transparent process. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to due process and ensuring that the rights of individuals are not compromised by relying on preliminary findings that lack procedural rigor.
This decision serves as a reminder to disciplinary authorities about the sanctity of regular enquiries and the necessity to uphold the principles of natural justice. It emphasizes that preliminary enquiries, while useful for initial assessments, cannot form the sole basis for punitive actions once a comprehensive and participatory enquiry has been conducted.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.