Rajasthan High Court ruled that preliminary enquiry findings cannot justify punishment when key witnesses turn hostile in the regular departmental enquiry. The Court quashed the Constable’s dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with a fresh, lawful review.
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the dismissal of a Police Constable after ruling that a government department cannot punish an employee only on the basis of a Preliminary Enquiry when the charges are not proved through evidence in a regular departmental enquiry.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Farjand Ali, who held that the Reviewing Authority made a serious legal error by depending on statements from the preliminary probe, even though the main witnesses had turned hostile during the formal proceedings.
The Court emphasized that
“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 case relates to Constable Shankar Ram, who joined the police force in September 2008. In May 2015, he was charge-sheeted for allegations dating back to his training period in 2009-10.
The police department alleged that he was involved with canteen contractor Richpal Singh and demanded Rs 1,30,000 from Singh’s son Bhupendra Singh, falsely promising to get him appointed as a Constable in District Pali.
They also claimed that Rs 50,000 was paid in advance and deposited in the bank accounts of the petitioner and his cousin. After a departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor penalty on 29 November 2016, stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect.
The petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Authority on 29 September 2017 found the punishment too light and sent the matter back. This led to the penalty being increased to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect on 14 November 2017.
Later, the Inspector General of Police, Jodhpur Range, used suo motu powers under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan CCA Rules and issued a show-cause notice. On 15 May 2018, he passed the dismissal order, claiming that the previous punishments were not proportionate to the misconduct.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued through his counsel that the dismissal order was completely unjust, illegal, and against natural justice.
They said the entire case against him was based on the Preliminary Enquiry report even though the main witnesses in the regular enquiry—Richpal Singh and his son Bhupendra—had turned hostile and told the enquiry officer that the Rs 50,000 was only a “friendly loan for domestic purposes which had been repaid” and that there was no promise of job recruitment.
The petitioner also relied on the fact that the criminal case (FIR No. 276/2014) ended with the police filing a Final Report after finding the matter to be a simple loan dispute. The Judicial Magistrate had accepted that report.
The State defended the dismissal by arguing that police personnel must maintain very high standards. They submitted that departmental enquiries operate on “preponderance of probabilities” and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
They said that the petitioner returning the money showed that the transaction existed, and that the hostile witness statements only meant that the parties had settled, which
“does not wash away the stain of misconduct.”
Justice Farjand Ali analysed these arguments and focused on the improper reliance on the Preliminary Enquiry. He explained that a preliminary probe is only a fact-finding step to decide whether a full enquiry is needed.
Once a formal enquiry begins, the guilt must be proved only through evidence recorded in those proceedings.
The Court held that since the prosecution witnesses had denied the allegations and no supporting evidence came on record, the department could not depend on older statements from the preliminary stage.
The Court stated,
“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.”
Justice Ali also observed that the Reviewing Authority wrongly assumed that the Disciplinary Authority had passed a non-speaking order, even though the initial order ran 27 detailed pages. The Court said the Reviewing Authority had not applied its mind properly.
It added,
“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.”
The Court also noted the outcome of the criminal investigation. While criminal findings do not control disciplinary proceedings, the investigation officer’s conclusion—that the case was a civil loan dispute and no wrongdoing was found—could not be ignored entirely.
The Court said,
“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.”
After reviewing the entire record, the Rajasthan High Court concluded that the dismissal was not justified because the allegations stood on a “shaky factual foundation of the charge.”
The Court therefore quashed the penalty orders dated 29 September 2017, 15 May 2018, and 14 November 2017.
It directed that Constable Shankar Ram be reinstated immediately. It further ordered the Inspector General of Police to conduct a fresh review but strictly on the basis of evidence placed in the regular departmental enquiry and also consider the police investigation findings in the FIR.
The Court added that the time spent out of service will count as duty for continuity of service, while back wages will depend on the final outcome of the new penalty proceedings. The entire exercise must be completed within three months.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Raj Singh Bhati, appearing for the State.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Firoda and Mr. Jairam Saran, appearing for the petitioner
Case Title:
Shankar Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 981/2019)
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More On Rape Case
