Preliminary Enquiry Alone Not Enough for Dismissal

In a strong message on fairness and due process, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside the dismissal of a police constable, holding that punishment cannot be based only on a preliminary enquiry when the regular departmental enquiry fails to prove the charges.

The case was heard by Justice Farjand Ali, who ruled that senior police authorities committed a serious error by relying almost entirely on a preliminary enquiry while ignoring the evidence that emerged during the regular disciplinary proceedings. The Court made it clear that once a formal enquiry begins, only evidence recorded during that enquiry can be used to decide guilt.

The constable was appointed in 2008 and later faced allegations of demanding ₹1.3 lakh from a person by promising a job as a constable, and allegedly receiving ₹50,000 as advance. After a departmental enquiry, he was found guilty and initially punished with stoppage of two annual increments. This punishment was later increased to stoppage of four increments after an appeal.

However, the Inspector General of Police later used suo-motu review powers under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules and imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. This dismissal was challenged before the High Court

The constable argued that the disciplinary authority’s order was detailed and reasoned, running into 27 pages, and therefore the claim that it was “non-speaking” was incorrect. He also pointed out that during the regular enquiry, key prosecution witnesses turned hostile, weakening the case against him. Despite this, the reviewing authority relied heavily on statements made during the preliminary enquiry.

The Court agreed with these arguments. It observed that a preliminary enquiry is meant only to check whether a prima facie case exists. Once a regular enquiry starts, charges must be proved through legally acceptable evidence presented during that enquiry. Ignoring witness testimony from the formal enquiry and relying on preliminary statements amounts to punishment without legal evidence.

The High Court also expressed concern that the same authority first remanded the matter for a harsher penalty and later dismissed the constable using review powers. This, the Court said, raised serious doubts about fairness and objectivity.

Calling the action arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court held that review powers must be used carefully and not with a predetermined aim to impose a particular punishment.