Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof, Even in Departmental Proceedings: Delhi High Court

“Where the very basis of the charge is neither proved nor tested, the disciplinary enquiry stands vitiated” –  In a decisive ruling safeguarding procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court of Delhi upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision quashing departmental proceedings against a police constable accused of accepting illegal gratification, ruling that the entire enquiry stood “founded on unproven electronic evidence” and suffered from “foundational defects”.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain reiterated that even in internal disciplinary processes — where a lower standard of proof is applied — the basic tenets of natural justice and evidentiary law must be observed. It held that reliance on an unproved CD, non-examination of the complainant, and denial of opportunity to rebut the evidence fatally undermined the enquiry.

“Standard of proof is not a license to bypass legality and fairness” – Court Warns on Misuse of Departmental Proceedings

The case arose from a complaint made in 2005 by one Chetan Prakash, alleging that police officials, including Constable Sanjay Kumar Dubey, were accepting bribes from bootleggers. The complaint was supported by a video recording on a CD, which became the sole material relied upon in the subsequent vigilance enquiry, departmental proceedings, and even criminal prosecution.

Although the criminal case resulted in acquittal, the police continued with departmental proceedings and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of service, which was partially modified on appeal. The constable challenged the enquiry before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the challenge, quashed the punishment, and ordered consequential benefits, treating the suspension period as spent on duty.

“Where the CD was not proved and the complainant never examined, the enquiry collapses” – Court on Violation of Natural Justice

The Court underscored that the CD, though central to the charge, was never proved or exhibited during the enquiry:

“The alleged CD was neither exhibited nor formally proved… The complainant… was admittedly not examined… The CD itself was not played before the Inquiry Officer in the course of evidence, nor was it supplied to the respondent.”

This, the Court held, constituted serious procedural impropriety, as it denied the respondent any “meaningful opportunity to meet the allegations.” Even though the disciplinary authority later viewed the CD independently, such ex parte consideration could not substitute proof through enquiry proceedings.

“Acquittal not a bar, but absence of admissible evidence is fatal” – Department Cannot Proceed Without Independent Proof

While recognizing that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically nullify departmental action, the Court emphasized that:

“Where the acquittal is founded on a finding that the very material relied upon is unreliable or inadmissible, the disciplinary authority must independently assess whether any sustainable evidence remains to support the charge.”

In this case, both the Trial Court and the High Court in earlier proceedings had declared the CD inadmissible due to lack of Section 65-B certification, non-production of the original recording device, and forensic inconsistencies. Once this CD was excluded, no other evidence remained, making the charge unsustainable.

“Rule 16(iii) cannot cure absence of proof of foundational material” – Court Clarifies Limits of Procedural Shortcuts

The petitioner-authorities sought refuge under Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, which permits reliance on earlier statements when witnesses are unavailable.

However, the Court rejected this argument outright:

“Such reliance cannot extend to dispensing with the proof of the primary incriminating material itself… Rule 16(iii) cannot be invoked to cure a fundamental defect.”

The CD, being the sole foundational material, needed to be formally proved, not just referred to through third-party statements.

“Suspicion, however strong, is no substitute for legal evidence” – Court Affirms Right to Fair Enquiry Even in Disciplinary Action

Reiterating the standard that applies even in departmental enquiries, the Court clarified:

“Though the standard of proof is lower than in criminal trial, material relied upon must still be legally admissible and put to the delinquent officer… Findings cannot rest on material neither proved nor supplied.”

The Bench also cautioned against letting the seriousness of the charge override fair process, observing:

“Gravity of the allegation cannot dilute the requirement of fairness in the process.”

“Selective punishment without distinguishing evidence is unjustified” – Parity Among Co-Accused Cited

Another relevant factor noted was that co-delinquents, accused in the same incident based on the same CD, had been either exonerated or granted relief by the Tribunal. The Court found no distinguishing material to justify differential treatment of the respondent.

“Selective sustainment of punishment against one individual, without any distinguishing material, would be difficult to justify.”

CD Unproven, Process Unfair, Findings Unsustainable

Upholding the Tribunal’s judgment, the High Court concluded:

“The disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated on account of foundational defects… Reliance on an unproved CD, coupled with non-examination of the complainant, vitiated the enquiry.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Police and upheld the CAT’s decision quashing the disciplinary action, with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 14 January 2026