Preliminary Enquiry Loses Significance Once Regular Enquiry Is Initiated By Issuing Charge Sheet To Delinquent: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Explaining further, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumathi Jagadam held,

“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. Moreover, the preliminary enquiry report loses its significance, once the regular enquiry is initiated by issuing the charge sheet to the delinquent.”

Background

The Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the imposition of a major punishment of postponement of increment and pensions for one year with cumulative effect by treating the suspension period as not on duty by The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District (Respondent 1)

The petitioner, K. Mohan Rao, was employed as a Police Constable and was due for promotion as Sub-Inspector. However, Respondent 1 had suspended the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner along with two others, had demanded money from one Sri Polumuru Ramarao, who was organising a cube game. After initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service and was subsequently absolved of the charge of demanding money by the Enquiry Officer, who held the charge as not proved.

However, Respondent 1, on the basis of the preliminary report prepared by the Inspector of Police, issued a Dissent Memo and conducted the impugned proceedings whereby he imposed the punishment of postponement of increment for one year with effect on future increments and pension, while treating the period from 24.02.2012 to 05.09.2012 as 'Not on Duty'. Before approaching the Court through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioner had preferred appeals before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Respondent 2) and the Inspector General of Police (Respondent 3) and also a mercy petition before the State of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 5), all of which were rejected.

It was the case of the petitioner that the dissent memo issued by Respondent 1 was premised on the preliminary report submitted by the Inspector of Police and Respondent 1 had gone beyond the scope of CCA Rules and imposed the major penalty.

Contrary to this the respondents argued that the petitioner demanded money from Polumuru Ramarao and Gorle Thavudu and had warned them that he will implicate them in criminal cases, if they do not pay money. The victims had then approached a village elder who met the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, who in turn submitted a report against the petitioner, on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension. It was further argued that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, has sent enquiry report, however, having not agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, dissent memo along with copy of enquiry report, was served to the petitioner and major penalty was imposed only after giving due opportunity.

Holding that Respondent 1 was not justified in imposing the penalty on the basis of the preliminary report, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of S.I. (Civil) notionally on par with his juniors, with all consequential benefits.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order