Guilt Can Be Established On Basis Of Preliminary Inquiry Statements Even If Key Witnesses Turn Hostile During Departmental Proceedings : Delhi HC

Background Facts

The Petitioner was working as HC in Delhi Police. On 18.04.2020, he along with an associate detained two persons on the suspicion of theft of a vehicle. Subsequently he released them after extorting a sum of ₹42,000. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by ACP.

The employee was placed under suspension. Later a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge was proved. However, the star witnesses had turned hostile during the departmental enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of forfeiture of one-year approved service with permanent effect.

Aggrieved, employee filed an appeal but it was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed his Original Application.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the employee filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

It was argued by the employee that his guilt was not based on any evidence as the public witnesses denied any demand or exchange of money during the departmental enquiry. It was contended that the witnesses had turned hostile and failed to prove anything to incriminate the employee.

It was further argued that the Enquiry Officer had wrongly observed that the employee had won over the witnesses. It was argued that reliance could not be placed on statements of star witness recorded during the preliminary enquiry when the same witnesses during the departmental enquiry failed to point towards any alleged demand of money made by the employee. It was further submitted that the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report without analysing it.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Respondents that sufficient circumstantial evidence was available on record to establish the guilt of the employee. It was contended that that there was no infirmity in the order so as to warrant any interference by the Court.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that reappreciation of evidence is impermissible unless the findings are shown to be perverse or illegal. It was further noted that the disciplinary authority was within its domain to assess credibility of the contrasting statements of the witnesses to ascertain the guilt of the employee.

It was further observed that during the preliminary enquiry, the material witnesses had asserted that the employee had extorted money. It was observed by the Division Bench that the material witnesses had admitted that the employee had accompanied them in his private car to verify the sale of vehicle. Further they also identified their signatures on their statements recorded before the Police. But later they turned hostile during the departmental enquiry. It was also noted that the preliminary enquiry officer was examined and his testimony was proved.

It was held by the Division Bench that if any suspicion of theft came to the employee's notice, it was his duty to call the emergency officer. Further he should have handed over the doubtful persons to the concerned police authorities. However, the employee took the matter into his own hands.

It was held by the Division Bench that in departmental proceedings, the case does not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubts. It was held that just because the witnesses turned hostile, it does not render their initial statements inadmissible. Therefore, the guilt of the employee was established.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Jaideep Kumar V. Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.(C) 3520/2026

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sudhir Naagar and Bobby Choudhary, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC with Arvind, GP with Anushikha Rathore, Advs. for UOI