The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the dismissal order of a Police Constable, ruling that findings recorded in a Preliminary Enquiry cannot be made the sole basis for punishment if the charges are not substantiated by evidence led during the regular departmental enquiry.
In the case of Shankar Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 981/2019), the Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the Reviewing Authority committed an error apparent on the face of the record by relying on preliminary enquiry statements while ignoring the fact that key witnesses had turned hostile during the formal disciplinary proceedings.
Case Background
The petitioner, Shankar Ram, who joined service as a Constable on September 24, 2008, was issued a charge-sheet on May 4, 2015. The allegations dated back to his training period in 2009-2010. It was alleged that the petitioner associated with Shri Richpal Singh, a canteen contractor, and fraudulently demanded ₹1,30,000 from the contractor’s son, Bhupendra Singh, promising to secure his appointment as a Constable in District Pali. The department alleged that an advance of ₹50,000 was received and deposited into the bank accounts of the petitioner and his cousin.
Following a departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority initially passed an order on November 29, 2016, imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.
Upon the petitioner’s appeal, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated September 29, 2017, found the punishment inadequate and remanded the matter. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority enhanced the penalty to the stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect via an order dated November 14, 2017.
Subsequently, the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, exercising suo motu powers as the Reviewing Authority under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (CCA Rules), issued a show-cause notice. The Reviewing Authority eventually passed the impugned order on May 15, 2018, dismissing the petitioner from service, asserting that the earlier penalties were not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Firoda and Mr. Jairam Saran, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the dismissal was “wholly arbitrary, perverse, and violative of the principles of natural justice.” They contended that the findings of guilt were legally unsustainable as they relied almost exclusively on the Preliminary Enquiry report.
The counsel highlighted that during the regular enquiry, the key witnesses—complainant Shri Richpal Singh and his son Bhupendra Singh—turned hostile. They deposed that the transaction of ₹50,000 was a “friendly loan for domestic purposes which had been repaid” and explicitly denied that the petitioner had induced them with promises of recruitment.
The petitioner also relied on the outcome of a parallel criminal investigation (FIR No. 276/2014), where the Investigating Officer concluded the dispute was of a civil nature regarding a loan, filing a Final Report (FR) which was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Raj Singh Bhati, appearing for the State, defended the dismissal, arguing that members of a disciplined force are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity. He submitted that the standard of proof in departmental enquiries is the “preponderance of probabilities” and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Citing the Supreme Court judgments in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha and Central Industrial Security Force Vs. Shri Abrar Ali, the respondents argued that the High Court should not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence. They contended that the return of money by the petitioner established the transaction, and the witnesses’ hostile testimony merely suggested a settlement between parties, which “does not wash away the stain of misconduct.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Farjand Ali scrutinized the procedure adopted by the Reviewing Authority, particularly the reliance on the Preliminary Enquiry over the Regular Enquiry.
On Preliminary Enquiry vs. Regular Enquiry: The Court observed that a Preliminary Enquiry is merely a fact-finding exercise to decide whether to initiate proceedings.
“It is a trite and settled proposition of service jurisprudence that… once the formal enquiry is initiated, the charges must be proved by the prosecution through legally admissible evidence led during the regular proceedings.”
The Court noted that since the prosecution’s entire case collapsed when the key witnesses refuted the allegations of job racketeering during the regular enquiry, relying on their previous statements was improper.
“I am of the considered view that the material of preliminary enquiry cannot be made the sole basis of punishement when such material did not come on record during the regular enquiry.”
On the Reviewing Authority’s Actions: The Court criticized the Reviewing Authority for proceeding on the premise that the Disciplinary Authority’s order was non-speaking, noting that the initial order was a detailed 27-page document. The Court held that the Reviewing Authority failed to apply its mind independently.
“The fact that the same authority first remanded the matter for enhanced punishment and then… proceeded suo motu to impose the maximum penalty of dismissal, raises a serious doubt regarding the objectivity and fairness of the process.”
On the Parallel Criminal Investigation: While acknowledging that criminal court conclusions are not binding on disciplinary authorities, the Court stated that the factual finding of the police investigation—that the dispute was civil and false—could not be entirely disregarded.
“In these circumstances, it can reasonably be noted that even on the spectrum of probabilities, no material was found that could establish a case against the petitioner.”
Decision
The High Court held that the penalty of dismissal was unwarranted given the “shaky factual foundation of the charge.”
The Court passed the following directions:
- Quashed Orders: The orders dated September 29, 2017 (Appellate Authority), May 15, 2018 (Reviewing Authority/Dismissal), and November 14, 2017 (Enhanced Penalty) were quashed and set aside.
- Reinstatement: The petitioner, Shri Shankar Ram, was directed to be “reinstated to his service forthwith.”
- Remand: The matter was remanded back to the Inspector General of Police to conduct a fresh review. The Court directed that the authority must:
“…confine its reconsideration strictly to the material brought on record during the regular disciplinary proceedings and shall also take into account the conclusion of the Investigating Officer in the connected FIR.” - Back Wages: The period from dismissal to reinstatement is to be treated as on duty for continuity of service, but back wages will depend on the outcome of the fresh penalty order.
The exercise is to be completed within three months.
