Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10278

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Rekha Borana, J
Lalit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3103/2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nikhil Dungawat
For the Respondents: Rituraj Singh Bhati, Raj Singh Bhati, Shailendra Kumar, Paramvir Singh, Roop Singh Rathore

Evidence recorded in a preliminary enquiry is inadmissible in a regular disciplinary enquiry, and a disciplinary authority cannot impose a penalty based on preliminary findings after a regular enquiry has exonerated the delinquent employee due to a lack of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 - R. 34 - R. 13 - Disciplinary proceedings - Preliminary enquiry vis-à-vis regular enquiry - Evidence recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be relied upon in regular enquiry - Disciplinary authority imposed punishment of censure solely on the basis of preliminary findings ignoring the acquittal in regular enquiry - Held, order of punishment set aside - Reviewing authority cannot exercise powers after the statutory period of three years under proviso (iii) of Rule 34.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a police constable who faced disciplinary action based on allegations of illegal gratification. Although the enquiry officer exonerated him in a regular enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of censure based on a preliminary enquiry report and testimonies that were later rendered hostile. The appellate authority affirmed the order, leading to the current writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that evidence from a preliminary enquiry is inadmissible in a regular enquiry. The punishment imposed on mere surmises, without evidence and contrary to the enquiry officer's findings of 'not proved', is unsustainable. The court also observed that the statutory period of three years for the governor to review the case had elapsed.

Issues: Whether the reviewing authority could exercise powers beyond three years, whether evidence from a preliminary enquiry is relevant after a formal enquiry, and whether the court can interfere with a minor penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary authority cannot impose a penalty based on preliminary enquiry findings when a regular enquiry, conducted under the rules, has concluded that charges are not proved. Findings based on mere surmises without evidence are subject to judicial review.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background leading to disciplinary order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. petitioner reliance on case law regarding regular vs preliminary enquiry. (Para 12 , 13)
3. respondent justification for minor penalty based on preliminary findings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. limitation period for review under rule 34 cannot be extended. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. inadmissibility of preliminary enquiry evidence in regular disciplinary proceedings. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. judicial review intervention when punishment is based on surmises without evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure-15) passed by the Appellate Authority vide which order dated 22.12.2013 (Annexure-11) passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a punishment of censure on the petitioner, stood affirmed. The inaction of the reviewing authority, in not deciding the review petition as filed by the petitioner, is also under challenge.

2. The facts are that the petitioner who was appointed as ‘Constable’ with the respondent department in the Year 1995, was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.11.2011 in pursuance to a proposed departmental Enquiry in terms of Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCA Rules’). Memorandum of charges dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure-2) was served on the petitioner whereby charges of an alleged demand of illegal gratification and further for sale of liquor allegedly loaded in a vehicle, were framed.

3. In the disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure-4), found all the charges to be disproved. However, vide communication dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure-5), the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur concluded the said enquiry report to be incomplete and remanded the same back to the Enquiry Officer for a detailed enquiry on the points as communicated vide the said letter.

4. In compliance thereof, the Enquiry Officer, vide communication dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure-6), filed a detailed explanation on all the five points as raised in communication dated 26.08.2013 and again concluded that no charge against the incumbents was found to be proved. The Enquiry Officer went on to record that the confidential letter as filed by the then concerned SHO, on basis of which the complete proceedings were initiated, itself was doubtful.

5. However, still being dissatisfied with the report, vide communication dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure-8), a factual report was again called for by the Superintendent of Police and in response thereof, vide communication dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-9), it was communicated by the Additional Superintendent of Police that the statements of one Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash were not recorded during the enquiry proceedings which ought to have been recorded. Therefore, an explanation ought to be called for and disciplinary proceedings deserve to be initiated against the said Sub-Inspector.

6. However, subsequently on the directions been issued, the statements of said Sub-Inspector Ved Prakash were recorded on 20.11.2013 and a supplementary Enquiry Report was submitted on 16.12.2013 (Annexure-10). The said Enquiry Report however concluded the same result i.e., charges against the incumbents were found to be not proved.

7. After the Enquiry Report been submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 22.12.2013 (Annexure-11), the Disciplinary Authority observed that although the charges were found to be proved in the preliminary enquiry, the same were not found to be proved in the disciplinary proceedings and it was only because of the witnesses turning hostile. The complete episode however, tarnished the image of Police and hence, impose the punishment of censure on all the incumbents therein, including the present petitioner. So far as the period of 35 days of absence from duty

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10278

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)Rekha Borana, JLalit Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan – RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3103/2015

Evidence recorded in a preliminary enquiry is inadmissible in a regular disciplinary enquiry, and a disciplinary authority cannot impose a penalty based on preliminary findings after a regular enquiry has exonerated the delinquent employee due to a lack of evidence.

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Rekha Borana, J
Lalit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3103/2015