enquiry. The Enquiry Officer nevertheless held that the charge framed against the petitioner stood proved by taking note of the statement given by the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry. It is settled law that the statements recorded behind back of the delinquent cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer fell into a serious error by relying upon the preliminary enquiry report. In fact, the purpose of the preliminary enquiry report was only to see if there is a prima facie case to initiate regular enquiry against the delinquent. It does not serve any other purpose. The Enquiry Officer ought to have seen whether any legally acceptable material was adduced before her. In the present case, none of the witnesses supported the charge framed against the delinquent during the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer ought to have held that the charge framed against the petitioner is not proved. If the victim or her parents supported the charge framed against the petitioner in the regular enquiry, their turning hostile in the criminal prosecution can be ignored. But, in this case, in both the departmental enquiry as well as the criminal trial, the witnesses did not depose against the delinquent herein. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
