Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 444 (DEL)

CONSTABLE RAJENDER KUMAR v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2009-04-17

A.K.SIKRI, SURESH KAIT

body2009
AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CJ 1. Constable Rajender Kumar, the petitioner herein, faced a joint departmental inquiry with his co-delinquent Constable Virender Kumar on the following charge: “I, Inspector Ashok Goswami, E.O./D.E.Cell, Delhi charge you Const.Virender Kumar, No.1737/SD and Const. Rajender Kumar No.3417/SD that you were on Motor Cycle patrolling duty in the area of PS Sarita Vihar in the night between 4.5.6.05, Shri R.S.Chauhan, ACP was on surprise checking from Vigilance Branch and at about 01.30 AM, he reached near Apollo Hospital on Mathura Road, he saw a few long route trucks parked on the road near patrol pump. He also saw four yellow colour Police Motor Cycles with staff near petrol pump. He watched the motor cycles for 5-10 minutes. Soon these motor cycles started chasing a few trucks coming from Badarpur side. The ACP/Vigilance also followed motor cycles after taking U-turn and intercepted one motor cycle No.DL-1 SL-6653 with you two Constables, Virender Kumar No.1737/SD and Rajender Kumar NO.3417/SD, who had stopped a truck (mini) NO.38-A-4918. When the ACP/Vigilance reached near motor cycle, he found Const. Rajender Kumar, No.3417/SD standing near the left side window of the truck and truck owner Israr Ahmed was giving Rs.20/ to you. Both of you Constables were on patrolling duty. On enquiry it was revealed that the motor cycle staff on patrolling stopped trucks, carrying goats to Sadar Bazar slaughter house and you extorted money from them on the pretext of not taking action for loading animals over and above the permissible limits. You Const. Rajender Kumar, No.3417/SD and Const.Virender Kumar, No.1737/SD also stopped truck No.HR-38-A-4918 with intention to extort money from truck operator. The aforesaid act of you Const.Rajender Kumar No.3417/SD and Const.Virender Kumar NO.1737/SD amounts to gross misconduct negligence, remissness in discharge of your duty as public servant and unbecoming of a police officer which renders you both for punishment under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.” 2. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 25th January, 2006 held that the charge against both the Constables stood substantiated. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, after following due procedure, vide order dated 19th April, 2006 inflicted upon the petitioner and the co-delinquent punishment of forfeiting three years’ approved service permanently, entailing reduction in their pay from Rs.4240/-to Rs.3965/-per month and Rs.4050 to Rs.3795 respectively. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, after following due procedure, vide order dated 19th April, 2006 inflicted upon the petitioner and the co-delinquent punishment of forfeiting three years’ approved service permanently, entailing reduction in their pay from Rs.4240/-to Rs.3965/-per month and Rs.4050 to Rs.3795 respectively. The appeal carried against the order of the disciplinary authority was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 23rd August, 2006. 3. In OA No.468/2007 preferred before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the inquiry conducted by the ACP (Vigilance) Shri R.S.Chauhan was preliminary inquiry as envisaged under Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter for brevity’s sake referred to as the Rules) and inasmuch as the preliminary inquiry disclosed commission of cognizable offence by a police officer of a subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental inquiry could be ordered after obtaining prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held. It was urged that no approval as envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 was accorded by the Additional Commissioner of Police and that being so the entire proceedings culminating into the impugned orders would be vitiated and deserve to be set aside. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Ravinder Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another (OA NO.1125/2004 decided on 15.10.2004) which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 2964/2005 (Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ravinder Singh, decided on 23rd March, 2005). The Tribunal, however, following two full Bench judgments of the Tribunal in Ranvir Singh & Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (OA Nos.340/2004 and 1613/2004 decided on 10.5.2005) and Constable Gyanender v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others (OA 2425/2006 decided on 22.8.2007) held that the spot inquiry made by the Additional Commissioner of Police-Vigilance on which his report was based would not partake the character of a preliminary inquiry as envisaged under Rule 15(1) of the Rules and consequently the argument of violation of Rule 15(2) was rejected. The order of the Tribunal is impugned in the present petition. 4. The order of the Tribunal is impugned in the present petition. 4. Ravinder Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi (supra) interpreted Rule 15(2) of the Rules pursuant to which an inquiry held by Crime Branch Cell was held to be a preliminary inquiry within the meaning of Rules 15(1) of the Rules. Thereafter another Bench of the Tribunal in Jaikishan v. Government of NCT of Delhi (OA 81/2004) took a contrary view. In view of this, the matter was referred to a larger Bench in the case of Ravinder Singh and Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi (OA 340/2005 and 1613/2004). In the meanwhile, in the writ petition filed in this Court against the judgment dated 15th October, 2004 passed in Ravinder Singh V. Government of NCT of Delhi the view taken therein was upheld by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed on 23rd March, 2005. Notwithstanding this, the Full Bench of Tribunal took a view contrary to the view taken in Ravinder Singh while interpreting Rule 15(2) of the Rules. The Full Bench noted an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in R.K.Gupta, Development Officer v. Union of India & Others 1971 (1) SLR 477 and held that there has to be an order to initiate preliminary enquiry by the competent authority and anti-corruption raids, investigations or vigilance enquiries would not fall within the expression “preliminary enquiry” used in Rule 15 of the Rules. Another Full Bench of the Tribunal was constituted in the case of Constable Gyanender v. Government of NCT of Delhi which affirmed the earlier view of the Full Bench. When this writ petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 18th December, 2007, it was argued that the view taken by the two Full Benches of the Tribunal is contrary to the judgment of this Court dated 23rd March, 2005 which upheld the judgment of the Tribunal in Ravinder Singh. It was urged that in R.K.Gupta’s case the question related to interpretation of CCS(CCA) Rules which deal with suspension pending inquiry/investigation into criminal case whereas Rule 15(2) of the Rules deals with preliminary inquiry disclosing commission of cognizable offence on the basis of which a departmental inquiry is ordered after prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police. Therefore, these two rules deal with entirely different situations and the language is also totally different. Therefore, these two rules deal with entirely different situations and the language is also totally different. In view of the fact that Tribunal in the Full Bench has dealt with both the judgments in substantial details and agreed with the opinion in R.K.Gupta, the Division Bench deemed it proper to refer the issue to be decided by a larger Bench. Accordingly the matter has been placed before this Full Bench. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, great stress was laid by Shri K.C.Mittal on the fact that under sub-rule(1) of Rule 15 preliminary inquiry has been prescribed as a fact finding inquiry (i) to establish the nature of default and identity of the defaulter(s) (ii) to collect prosecution evidence (iii) to judge the quantum of default and (iv) to bring relevant documents on record. It was urged that when such four ingredients are satisfied, it must be taken to be a preliminary inquiry irrespective of the fact whether an order was passed for preliminary inquiry or not. Shri Mittal urged that when any inquiry by any person satisfies the four ingredients, it must be taken to be a preliminary inquiry. Shri Mittal also urged that if his interpretation is not to be accepted then Rule 16(iii) would become redundant as it provides that in absence of the examination of a witness, his earlier statement recorded in trial or even in investigation, can be brought on record. According to him for want of application of mind by the Additional Commissioner of Police under Rule 15(2) of the Rules, the departmental enquiry and consequent orders would be a nullity. 6. On the contrary, on behalf of the respondents Mr.Aditya Madan had contended that there has to be an order passed by the concerned authority to hold a preliminary inquiry and the person holding the preliminary inquiry has to find out the four ingredients and thereupon, if necessary, a departmental inquiry can be initiated. Therefore according to him, a preliminary inquiry cannot be equated with an investigation, vigilance inquiry or raids etc. However, if there was an order by the competent authority to hold such an inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Rules it can be taken to be so. 7. Therefore according to him, a preliminary inquiry cannot be equated with an investigation, vigilance inquiry or raids etc. However, if there was an order by the competent authority to hold such an inquiry as contemplated under Section 15 of the Rules it can be taken to be so. 7. In the light of the rival contentions advanced at the Bar, the question that arise for our consideration is whether the preliminary inquiry against the delinquent police officer is required to be ordered by the competent authority. Further question would be whether anti corruption raids, investigations or vigilance enquiries are covered under the expression “preliminary enquiry” used in Rule 15(2) of the Rules. 8. Before adverting to these questions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rules. Rule 15 and Rule 16(iii) of the Rules, which are material for our purpose, read as follows: “Rule 15(1) A preliminary enquiry is a fact finding enquiry. Its purpose is (i) to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter (s), (ii) to collect prosecution evidence, (iii) to judge quantum of default and (iv) to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In cases where specific information covering the above-mentioned points exists a Preliminary Enquiry need not be held and Departmental enquiry may be ordered by the disciplinary authority straightaway. In all other cases a preliminary enquiry shall normally proceed a departmental enquiry. .(2) In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held. .(3) The Suspected police officer may or may not be present at a preliminary enquiry but when present he shall not cross-examine the witness. The file of preliminary enquiry shall not form part of the formal departmental record, but statements therefrom may be brought on record of the departmental proceedings when the witnesses are no longer available. There shall be no bar to the Enquiry Officer bringing on record any other documents from the file of the preliminary enquiry, if he considers it necessary after supplying copies to the accused officer. There shall be no bar to the Enquiry Officer bringing on record any other documents from the file of the preliminary enquiry, if he considers it necessary after supplying copies to the accused officer. All statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry shall be signed by the person making them and attested by enquiry officer.” “Rule 16(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.” .9. At the outset, it must be remembered that the expression “preliminary inquiry” is not defined in the Delhi Police Act or the Rules. The Supreme Court in the matter of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India ( 1964 SCR 190 ) has drawn a distinction between the departmental inquiry and the preliminary inquiry as follows: “…..But even where it is intended to take action by way of punishment what usually happens is that something in the nature of what may be called a preliminary enquiry is first held in connection with the alleged misconduct or unsatisfactory work. In this preliminary enquiry the explanation of the government servant may be taken and documentary and even oral evidence may be considered. It is usual when such a preliminary enquiry makes out a prima facie case against the servant concerned that charges are then framed against him and he is asked to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him….. Generally therefore a preliminary enquiry is usually held to determine whether a prima facie case for a formal departmental enquiry is made out, and it is very necessary that the two should not be confused. Even where government does not intend to take action by way of punishment against a temporary servant on a report of bad work or misconduct a preliminary enquiry is usually held to satisfy government that there is reason to dispense with the services of a temporary employee or to revert him to his substantive post, for as we have said already government does not usually take action of this kind without any reason. Therefore when a preliminary enquiry of this nature is held in the case of a temporary employee or a government servant holding a higher rank temporarily it must not be confused with the regular departmental enquiry (which usually follows such a preliminary enquiry) when the government decides to frame charges and get a departmental enquiry made in order that one of the three major punishments already indicated may be inflicted on the government servant. Therefore, so far as the preliminary enquiry is concerned there is no question of its being governed by Art. 311(2) for that enquiry is really for the satisfaction of government to decide whether punitive action should be taken or action should be taken under the contract or the rules in the case of a temporary government servant or a servant holding higher rank temporarily to which he has no right. In short a preliminary enquiry is for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of a government servant in which he may or may not be associated so that the authority concerned may decide whether or not to subject the servant concerned to the enquiry necessary under Art. 311 for inflicting one of the three major punishments mentioned therein. Such a preliminary enquiry may even be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of government, though usually for the sake of fairness, explanation is taken from the servant concerned even at such an enquiry. But at that stage he has no right to be heard for the enquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government, and it is only when the government decides to hold a regular departmental enquiry for the purposes of inflicting one of the three major punishments that the government servant gets the protection of Art. 311 and all the rights that that protection implies as already indicated above. There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Art. 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that Article….” 10. In The Rt.Rev. B.P.Sugandhar Bishop in Medak v. Smt.Dorothy Dayasheela Ebeneser JT 1996 (6) SC 221 the respondent had filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the order of her suspension and also the action of the respondent constituting an Inquiry Commission. In the counter reply that was filed it had been stated that Inquiry Commission was only a fact finding body and that an inquiry officer will be appointed to hold the inquiry and that a detailed charge sheet will be issued based on the report of the Inquiry Commission. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the preliminary inquiry. The Supreme Court held: “5. We find it difficult to appreciate how the Division Bench thought it fit to quash the preliminary enquiry particularly when the appellant had made it clear, by the time the Division Bench disposed of the appeal that the formal enquiry was yet to be held. Obviously, the purpose of constituting the Commission of Enquiry was to hold only a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there was some truth in the complaints made against the respondent No.1 and whether there was enough material on the basis of which misconduct of respondent No.1 could be proved…..” 11. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 63 Rule 15(2) of the Rules fell for consideration. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Singh v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 63 Rule 15(2) of the Rules fell for consideration. In that case the charge was framed after preliminary inquiry was conducted. The contention of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that the departmental inquiry was held preceded by a preliminary inquiry, but no approval was obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Police under Rule 15(2) and, therefore, the inquiry is vitiated. This being a pure question of law, the respondent was directed to produce records as to whether prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police was obtained or not. It was conceded on behalf of the respondents that the record does not disclose that prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police was obtained. A supplementary affidavit was, however, filed stating that no preliminary inquiry was ordered, hence prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police as per Rule 15(2) was neither required nor the same was taken. This stand of the government was rejected being completely contrary to the statement of PW-4. The Court while explaining the scope of Rule 15(2) observed as follows: “A reading of Rule 15(1)&(2) together and the language employed therein clearly discloses that a preliminary enquiry is held only in cases of allegation, which is of weak character and, therefore, a preliminary enquiry is to be held to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter; to collect the prosecution evidence; to judge quantum of default and to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In cases, where specific information is available, a preliminary enquiry is not necessary and a departmental enquiry may be ordered by the disciplinary authority straightaway. It is because of this reason Sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 is couched in such a way as a defence to the delinquent officer. The Additional Commissioner of Police being higher in hierarchy next to DGP, the requirement of his approval is mandatory, so that the delinquent officer is not prejudiced or harassed unnecessarily in a departmental enquiry. Such approval, if any, must also be accorded after due application of mind. It is a case of violation of mandatory provisions of law.” .12. The Additional Commissioner of Police being higher in hierarchy next to DGP, the requirement of his approval is mandatory, so that the delinquent officer is not prejudiced or harassed unnecessarily in a departmental enquiry. Such approval, if any, must also be accorded after due application of mind. It is a case of violation of mandatory provisions of law.” .12. In R.K.Gupta’s case(supra) the order of suspension was challenged on the ground that it was passed mala fide and on the ground that it was not authorized by Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. The argument was that the suspension was not authorized by Rule 10(1)(b) of the said Rules inasmuch as no investigation was pending against the petitioner in connection with any criminal offence at or prior to the date of passing of the said order. The stand of the respondents was that CBI was carrying on investigation against the petitioner in respect of certain matters. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that CBI was conducting merely a preliminary inquiry but it cannot be equated to an investigation within the meaning of Rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules. The argument of the respondents was negatived with the following observations: “19. It is described as a preliminary enquiry. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the recording of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is not mentioned in this document. After recording the information it is stated that the preliminary enquiry is being registered for verification as it requires a probe. In our opinion, the words ‘preliminary enquiry’, ‘probe’ and ‘verification’ are significant and got to show that this preliminary enquiry cannot be equated to an investigation as contemplated by Section 157 of the Code ….” 13. Shri K.D.Shrivastava in his book “Disciplinary Action against Government Servant and its Remedies” 5th Ed, at page 327 makes an attempt to describe as to what is a preliminary inquiry: “3. Preliminary enquiry: (i)What is – On the receipt of a complaint or the facts coming otherwise to the knowledge of the authority competent to take disciplinary action, it is open to him to make such preliminary enquiry as he deems proper to ascertain the prima facie truth of the allegations and the evidence available in support thereof. Preliminary enquiry: (i)What is – On the receipt of a complaint or the facts coming otherwise to the knowledge of the authority competent to take disciplinary action, it is open to him to make such preliminary enquiry as he deems proper to ascertain the prima facie truth of the allegations and the evidence available in support thereof. It may sometimes be advisable to intimate the facts of the person concerned and to know what he has to say without framing a formal charge sheet. For such an enquiry hardly any rules exist, but such a procedure is implicit in the very nature of things.” 14. It is thus clearly seen that preliminary inquiry is for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to conduct and work of the government servant in which he may or may not be associated and as such for the satisfaction of the government which may decide whether or not to subject the government servant to departmental inquiry for inflicting any of the punishments mentioned in Article 311. Although, usually, for the sake of fairness, explanation is taken from the government servant, but he has no right of being heard because it is for satisfaction of the government. Therefore, since, the preliminary inquiry is held for the satisfaction of the government, necessarily it can be held after an order passed by the competent authority of the government. .15. A bare perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 would manifest that preliminary inquiry is held only in cases of allegations, which are of weak character, and before the department resorts to regular departmental inquiry it may like to ascertain veracity of the facts which are subject-matter of complaint against the delinquent. The purpose of preliminary inquiry has been mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 which is (i) to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter(s); (ii) to collect prosecution evidence; (iii) to judge quantum of default and (iv) to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental inquiry. The provisions contained in Rule 15(1) also unequivocally clothe the departmental authority to straightaway order departmental inquiry in cases where specific information covering the above-mentioned points exists, and preliminary inquiry need not be held. It is only in other cases i.e. where matters as mentioned in sub-rule(1) of Rule 15 have to be ascertained that a preliminary inquiry is ordered. The provisions contained in Rule 15(1) also unequivocally clothe the departmental authority to straightaway order departmental inquiry in cases where specific information covering the above-mentioned points exists, and preliminary inquiry need not be held. It is only in other cases i.e. where matters as mentioned in sub-rule(1) of Rule 15 have to be ascertained that a preliminary inquiry is ordered. Further it is pertinent to note that Rule 15(3) provides that “all statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry shall be signed by the person making them and attested by the Inquiry Officer”. In other words, it provides a procedure for preliminary inquiry that statements have to be attested by Inquiry Officer. Thus, preliminary inquiry has to be by Inquiry Officer who has been appointed for the purpose. The appointment has to be necessarily by the disciplinary authority or an appropriate authority in this regard. Any person who records the statement of a delinquent and forwards the same with his report to the disciplinary authority cannot be taken to be Inquiry Officer. In other words a preliminary inquiry can only by an officer appointed for the purpose. Even if a person on his own investigates into the fact without the order of the competent authority, at best it can be taken to be information supplied to the authority rather than a preliminary inquiry. If such information is received pursuant to a raid, investigation or vigilance inquiry it cannot be equated with a preliminary inquiry. The competent authority can order preliminary inquiry in case he feels that facts have to be collected. 16. We are not impressed by the argument of Shri Mittal that if his interpretation is not accepted, Rule 16(iii) of the Rules would become redundant. A plain reading itself clearly shows the distinction between sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 and Rule 16(iii) of the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 is relevant only with respect to the preliminary enquiry. It provides that there shall be no bar to the Inquiry Officer bringing on record any other document to the file of the preliminary enquiry if he considers it necessary after supplying copies to the accused. It further clearly provides that the file of preliminary enquiry does not form part of a formal departmental record but statements can be brought on record when witnesses are no longer available. It further clearly provides that the file of preliminary enquiry does not form part of a formal departmental record but statements can be brought on record when witnesses are no longer available. Thus if there was a preliminary enquiry and witnesses are no longer available, only then the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry can be brought on the record. As against this sub-rule (iii) to Rule 16 is a general provision. This Rule postulates examination of all the witnesses in the presence of the accused, who is also to be given an opportunity to cross examine them. However, in case, the presence of any witness cannot be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expenses, his previous statement could be brought on record subject to the condition that the previous statement was recorded and attested by a police officer superior in rank than the delinquent. If such statement was recorded by the Magistrate and attested by him, then also it could be brought on record. The further requirement is that either the statement should have been signed by the person concerned, namely, the person, who has made that statement, or it was recorded during an investigation or a judicial inquiry or trial. The Rule further provides that unsigned statement shall be brought on record only through the process of examining the officer or the Magistrate, who had earlier recorded the statement of the witness, whose presence could not be procured. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police JT 1999 (8) SC 603 explained that Rule 16(iii) is almost akin to Sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act. Before the Rule can be invoked, the factors enumerated therein, namely, that the presence of the witness cannot be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense, have to be found to be existing as they constitute the condition-precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction for this purpose. In the absence of these factors, the jurisdiction under Rule 16(iii) cannot be exercised. The two Rules clearly operate in different situations. While sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 is confined to the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry, sub-rule (iii) of Rule 16 is not confined to the preliminary enquiry and the prior statements can be brought on record subject to the compliance with other ingredients of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 16 which are already noted. .17. While sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 is confined to the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry, sub-rule (iii) of Rule 16 is not confined to the preliminary enquiry and the prior statements can be brought on record subject to the compliance with other ingredients of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 16 which are already noted. .17. On going through the Division Bench judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ravinder Singh it is seen that though it approves the reasoning of the Tribunal in the case of Ravinder Singh it was only to the extent that when the ingredients of sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 are satisfied, the file is to be put up before the Additional Commissioner of Police. There was no discussion on the question as to what constitutes a preliminary inquiry. It was not even remotely urged before the Division Bench that inquiry conducted by Anti Corruption Cell of Vigilance Cell would partake the character of a preliminary inquiry as envisaged in Rule 15(2). We find that the question as to what is preliminary inquiry has not been gone into. In our opinion the two Full Bench decisions of the Tribunal lay down the law correctly. We accordingly hold that there has to be an order to initiate preliminary enquiry by the competent authority. The preliminary enquiry must precede the departmental enquiry to collect the facts contemplated under Rule 15(1) of the Rules. Anti-corruption raids, investigation or vigilance enquiry including the enquiries by PGR Cell cannot be equated with preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Rule 15(2) unless there was an order by the competent authority to hold such an enquiry contemplated under Rule 15(1) of the Rules. 18. The facts of the present case reveal that the petitioner and his co-delinquent were seen by Shri R.S.Chauhan, ACP accepting bribe. Inquiry was made from the truck driver and others on the spot and their statements were recorded on the spot. Report of the ACP, which was based on the spot collection of some material, would not partake the character of a preliminary inquiry as envisaged in Rule 15(1) of the Rules. That apart, a preliminary inquiry has necessarily to be ordered by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, any other inquiry, which is not ordered by the disciplinary authority, would not be a preliminary inquiry at all. The issue is answered accordingly. That apart, a preliminary inquiry has necessarily to be ordered by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, any other inquiry, which is not ordered by the disciplinary authority, would not be a preliminary inquiry at all. The issue is answered accordingly. Let the papers be placed before the Division Bench for disposal of the writ petition.