Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. The use of preliminary inquiry report and the evidence contained therein in the departmental inquiry is dealt with in Rule 16 (iii) of the Rules which reads as follows:-

(iii) If the accused police officer does not admit the misconduct, the Enquiry Officer shall proceed to record evidence in support of the accusation, as is available and necessary to support the charge. As far as possible the witnesses shall be examined direct and in the presence of the accused, who shall be given opportunity to take notes of their statements and cross-examine them. The Enquiry Officer is empowered, however, to bring on record the earlier statement of any witness whose presence cannot, in the opinion of such officer, be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense if he considers such statement necessary provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank to the accused officer, or by a Magistrate and is either signed by the person making it or has been recorded by such officer during an investigation or a judicial enquiry or trial. The statements and documents so brought on record in the departmental proceedings shall also be read out to the accused officer and he shall be given an opportunity to take notes. Unsigned statements shall be brought on record only through recording the statements of the officer or Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the witness concerned. The accused shall be bound to answer any questions which the enquiry officer may deem fit to put to him with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in the statements of documents thus brought on record.

14. From the aforesaid provisions, it is seen that preliminary inquiry need not be conducted in each and every case. Such an inquiry has a definite purpose. It is for the satisfaction of the departmental authority before deciding upon a course of action in a matter. If that purpose can be otherwise served, there may not be any necessity for holding a preliminary inquiry. Once a complaint is received by an authority, it is to be decided as to what action needs to be taken on such a complaint. The authority concerned may decide not to take any action on the complaint if it does not find any substance in it. If the complaint reveals commission of cognizable lapse, the authority concerned may order necessary action thereon where the complaint contains all the necessary material for that purpose. Where a complaint does not contain all the information necessary for deciding as to what action needs to be taken on it, it may expedient to have a preliminary inquiry in the matter. Accordingly, Rule 15 referred to above provides for a preliminary inquiry, inter alia, to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter, to collect prosecution evidence, to judge quantum of default and to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. However, where further regular departmental inquiry is ordered on the basis of preliminary inquiry report, the charge is required to be independently proved in the regular departmental inquiry. Thus the preliminary inquiry loses its relevance after initiation of regular departmental inquiry. Furthermore, Rule 16 provides for witnesses to be examined direct in the presence of accused, who would be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. However, if the witness is not available and the statement made in the preliminary inquiry is sought to be brought on record during the regular inquiry, the same can be done in the manner as prescribed in Rule 16 (iii). Accordingly, only unsigned statements made during the preliminary inquiry can be brought on record in a regular inquiry through recording the statements of the officer or Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the witness concerned. In other cases, it would not be necessary to examine the officer concerned during the inquiry. The learned counsel for the applicant has not pointed out as to for which statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry, the then DCP, North, is required to be appeared in person in the regular departmental inquiry in terms of the said Rule. Therefore, we do not find any force in the applicants contention that the inquiry stand vitiated on account of non-examination of DCP, North who conducted the preliminary inquiry.