New Delhi, March 30: The Delhi High Court has held that departmental proceedings against a government employee can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence and statements recorded during a preliminary inquiry, even if key witnesses later turn hostile.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the ruling in Jaideep Kumar v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (W.P.(C) 3520/2026), dismissing a writ petition filed by a Delhi Police Head Constable challenging disciplinary action against him.
The petitioner, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, was accused of detaining two individuals on suspicion of vehicle theft on April 18, 2020, and subsequently releasing them after allegedly extorting Rs. 42,000. A preliminary inquiry conducted by an ACP led to his suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings.
Although the key witnesses turned hostile during the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of forfeiture of one year of approved service with permanent effect. The employee’s appeal and subsequent application before the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed.
Court Held
The Bench reiterated that courts cannot reappreciate evidence in departmental proceedings unless findings are perverse or illegal. It observed that assessing the credibility of witnesses and reconciling contradictory statements falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority.
The Court noted that during the preliminary inquiry, material witnesses had clearly stated that money was extorted. While they later turned hostile, they admitted accompanying the petitioner in his private car and identified their earlier statements. The testimony of the preliminary inquiry officer was also found reliable.
The Bench further held that the petitioner acted beyond his authority by handling the suspected theft case himself instead of informing the appropriate police officials.
Emphasizing the standard of proof in departmental proceedings, the Court ruled that charges need not be established beyond reasonable doubt. It clarified that hostile witnesses do not render their earlier statements inadmissible, particularly when supported by circumstantial evidence.
Cort dismissed the petition and held guilt established.
