The failure to provide a preliminary enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings does not constitute grounds for overturning a dismissal unless it directly impacts the findings of guilt.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant writ petition impugns the order of 20 December 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [Tribunal] dismissing OA No.2021/1996 which had been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the respondents on culmination of disciplinary proceedings. For the purposes of disposal of the present writ petition, it would be pertinent to notice the following salient facts.

2. The respondents appear to have initiated enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and one constable Jitenderpal Singh based upon the complaint made by certain individuals alleging that the petitioner and Jitenderpal Singh were guilty of extortion of money and that on another date they had entered the premises of Diplomate Furniture and mercilessly beat one Kanhaiya Lal and snatched Rs. 1800 from them. On the very same night, the two delinquent employees are stated to have entered the house of one Uma Shankar in an inebriated state and snatched his watch and purse containing Rs. 500. In light of the allegations which were made, the petitioners came to be dismissed with the respondents invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of 09 November 2022 dismissing them from service, both the delinquent employees preferred appeals. The Appellate Authority allowed the said appeals and remanded the matter with the observation that a regular departmental enquiry may be conducted against them. Pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner and Jitenderpal Singh came to be reinstated in service on 20 October 1993 with effect from 17 September 1993. The department enquiry thereafter ensued and a chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner here as well as Jitenderpal Singh on 06 March 1994. The Enquiry Officer on culmination of those proceedings submitted a report finding that the employees were guilty of the charges as laid.

4. On a consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority by an order of 03 November 1995 dismissed the petitioner and Jitenderpal Singh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of dismissal, they are stated to have filed an appeal which too came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on 09 May 1996.

5. Assailing the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority, Jitenderpal Singh approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.1406/1996. The petitioner also challenged the aforesaid orders passed by the respondents by preferring OA No.2021/1996. The Tribunal by its judgment of 04 December 1998 allowed the OA filed by Jitenderpal Singh on the ground that since the respondents in the course of the departmental enquiry had taken on board the preliminary enquiry report which had been drawn and had failed to provide a copy of the same to Jitenderpal Singh, the enquiry proceedings stood vitiated on account of a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with Rule 15(3) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. On arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to set aside the order of punishment insofar as the said employee was concerned and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the respondents with liberty being reserved to recommence the enquiry proceedings, providing the said employee a copy of the preliminary enquiry report, recalling PW-8 (the author of the preliminary enquiry report) and granting the said employee an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness.

6. When the OA of the petitioner came up for consideration before the Tribunal, a similar a