proved, based on the report of the Sub Collector, Madurantakkam dated 8.8.2004 and submitted a report on 30.08.1995. On this aspect, it is relevant to point out the decision cited by the learned senior counsel reported in (2023) 1 WLR 324 (Siddheswaran vs. Secretary to Government), wherein it is held that the evidence adduced in the oral enquiry alone should be taken into consideration. Statement made in the preliminary enquiry cannot be accepted for the proof of the charges. In the present case, the 1st respondent, in his report, had solely relied upon the statement made by the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry which has been subsequently, disowned by them and all of them have turned hostile but the authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed the delinquency. Once the oral enquiry has been conducted, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and the evidence recorded in the oral enquiry alone has to be taken into consideration for purpose of coming to the conclusion. The 1st respondent, ignoring the material evidence available on record, has solely relied upon the earlier statement and had come to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed the delinquency. Merely because PW1 Sub
