1. Disciplinary proceedings — Police constable charged with bribery — Dismissal from service — Challenge to orders. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
P. Sambaiah - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (TR) No.1821 of 2017
Decided On : 08-06-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri B. Ashok.
For the Respondents: Sri G. Prasanth, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.
For the Petitioner: Sri B. Ashok.
For the Respondents: Sri G. Prasanth, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.
A preliminary inquiry report serves only to determine if a regular disciplinary proceeding is necessary. Its findings cannot be used as the basis for punishment unless the witnesses are produced and cross-examined during the regular inquiry to satisfy the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Disciplinary proceedings - Validity of findings based on preliminary inquiry report - Evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry is intended only to determine whether a regular disciplinary proceeding is required and cannot be used to pass an order of punishment (Paras 14, 15) - Using such evidence without providing the delinquent officer an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses would violate the principles of natural justice (Para 14).
(B) Departmental Enquiry - Evidence and Findings - Enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function and must arrive at conclusions based on a preponderance of probability from materials on record, not on surmises and conjectures (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
A police constable was dismissed from service on charges of accepting a bribe. During the regular departmental enquiry, independent witnesses turned hostile and denied the allegations. However, the enquiry officer held the charges as proved by relying upon the findings of a preliminary enquiry report, which was subsequently accepted by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the enquiry officer ignored the depositions of witnesses in the regular enquiry and relied solely on the preliminary enquiry findings. It was noted that no evidence of the recovery of the alleged bribe was presented during the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the punishment of dismissal is legal when the finding of the enquiry officer is based on a preliminary enquiry report while the witnesses in the regular enquiry turned hostile.
Ratio Decidendi: A preliminary inquiry is an internal document used only to decide if regular proceedings are warranted. Findings in a regular inquiry cannot be based on oral or documentary evidence obtained during a preliminary inquiry if such evidence was not presented and witnesses not cross-examined in the presence of the charged employee. Reliance on such preliminary findings constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ Petition (TR) allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; petitioner to be reinstated with all consequential benefits within eight weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: key witnesses turned hostile; no corroborating evidence. Respondents: due procedure followed; charges proved. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Enquiry officer relied solely on preliminary enquiry; independent witnesses turned hostile; no recovery of bribe amount. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Evidence from preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular enquiry; delinquent must be allowed cross-examination. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. Writ petition allowed — impugned dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders set aside — reinstatement with benefits. (Para 17 )
6. Can evidence from a preliminary enquiry be used in a regular disciplinary proceeding?
No. Evidence recorded in a preliminary enquiry cannot be used in a regular enquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and is denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. (Para 14 , 15 )
7. What is the standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding?
Charges in a departmental proceeding, being quasi-criminal, must be proved by a preponderance of probability based on materials on record; the enquiry officer cannot base findings on surmises and conjectures. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
8. Is a dismissal order valid when key witnesses turn hostile and no corroborating evidence exists?
No. When key witnesses turn hostile and there is no corroborating evidence of the charge, a finding based solely on a preliminary enquiry is unsustainable. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 )
ORDER :
K. SARATH, J.
The instant Writ Petition (TR) is filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.4 dated 07.12.2012 in D.O.No.2789/2012, C.No.41/PR/2009, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner and consequently, the appellate order dated 19.01.2013 passed by the respondent No.3 in C.No.48/APP/2012, R.O.No.50/2013 and the revisional order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings L.Dis.No.269-1/A3/PR/2013, Z.O.O.No.54/2013 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri B.Ashok, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Prashanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined as a Police Constable in Warangal District in the year, 2000 and while he was working at Nellikudur Police Station, he was placed under suspension on 29.10.2009 on the ground that on the instructions of Md. Samdhani, Head Constable, he accompanied him and others and went to Kasna Thanda on information that one Guguloth Veeranna was cultivating ganja on 20.09.2009 and alleged that Head Constable colluded with Veeranna, accepted Rs.10,000/- for not booking a case and instructed Veeranna to give the money to the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly received Rs.9,700/-, handed it over to Head Constable and accepted Rs.1,000/- as his share.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a charge memo was issued on 11.11.2009 vide C.No.41/PR/2009 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the same on 22.04.2010. Subsequently, a common enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and Md.Samdhani, Head Constable and submitted enquiry report vide C.No.01/OE/SDPO/2010 dated 30.04.2010 and held the charges as proved and the petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 15.07.2010. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.12.2012 dismissing the petitioner from service and the suspension period with effect from 03.11.2009 A.N. to 16.02.2010 was treated as “NOT ON DUTY”. The appellate and revisional authorities have rejected his appeals without considering the fact that the key witnesses had turned hostile and there was no corroborating evidence of any demand or acceptance of bribe.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved basing on the preliminary enquiry report and the said finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Basing on the said Enquiry Officer’s report, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have passed impugned orders and the same are liable to be set aside. The respondents, without following the procedure as per the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1991 (for brevity, “the Rules, 1991”), passed impugned order. In view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition (TR) by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondents.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following Judgments:
(i) M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India , (2006) 5 SCC 88,
(ii) Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra and others , (1991) 1 SCC 299.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner was suspended on 29.10.2009 pending disciplinary proceedings and the respondents issued Charge Memo on 11.11.2009. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry by following the Rules, 1991 and given a finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved and submitted report on 30.04.2010 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply/ representation. Upon considering the article
