On May 12, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling concerning disciplinary proceedings within public service. In the case of K. Mohan Rao v. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District, the court emphasized that a preliminary enquiry loses its significance once a regular enquiry is initiated by issuing a charge sheet to the delinquent. Consequently, a major penalty cannot be imposed based solely on the preliminary enquiry, especially when the regular enquiry has not substantiated the charges.

Violation of Natural Justice: Justice Sumathi Jagadam underscored that relying on evidence from a preliminary enquiry—where the accused does not have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses—violates the principles of natural justice.

Case Background: The petitioner, K. Mohan Rao, a police constable, was suspended on allegations of demanding money from an individual organizing a cube game. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted, during which the Enquiry Officer found the charges unproven.

Disciplinary Authority’s Action: Despite the findings of the regular enquiry, the Superintendent of Police issued a Dissent Memo based on the preliminary report and imposed a penalty of postponement of increment for one year, affecting future increments and pension.

• Court’s Decision: The High Court set aside the disciplinary action, stating that once a regular enquiry is initiated, the preliminary report cannot be used as the basis for imposing penalties. The court highlighted that the disciplinary authority cannot override the findings of the Enquiry Officer by relying on the preliminary enquiry.

This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to due process in disciplinary proceedings and ensures that the rights of the accused are protected throughout the enquiry process.

Sources