In departmental inquiries, the absence of strict adherence to evidentiary rules does not negate the validity of proceedings; evidence is assessed based on the preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’] the Petitioner assails the correctness of order dated 29.01.2009 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IO-1’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’], whereby the Original Application (OA) filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. Along with assailing the order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner also seeks to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Findings/IF’], the Order dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority [hereinafter referred to as ‘IO-2’] and the Order dated 01.05.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority [hereinafter referred to as ‘IO-3’], all of which found the Petitioner to be guilty of corruption.

3. In order to comprehend the issue arising for the adjudication of this Court, the relevant facts are required to be noticed.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

4. On 11.09.2002, the Petitioner was appointed as a Woman Constable in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. While she was posted as a Daily Diary (DD) Writer at Police Station, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, on 06.09.2005, a departmental case arose against her out of an allegation that, during a sting operation conducted by the Sansani programme of Star News Channel, one Mr. Neeraj Kumar, acting as a decoy, came to the reporting room to lodge a Non- Cognizable Report (NCR) regarding loss of his mobile phone. The Petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 200/- and accepted Rs. 150 for lodging the said NCR; such transaction was stated to have taken place in the presence of HC Hari Kishan, who was the Duty Officer at the relevant time and was supposed to sign the said NCR.

5. The aforesaid incident was video graphed with a concealed camera and, subsequently, was telecasted on 14.09.2005 in the Sansani programme, a video-CD of this telecast later formed the central piece of evident in the departmental proceedings.

6. Consequently, on 10.01.2006 a join departmental inquiry was ordered against the Petitioner and Head Constable (HC) Hari Kishan under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1980’]. Following which the Enquiry Officer (EO) appointed thereby, served upon the Petitioner a summary of allegations and thereafter framed a specific charge against the Petitioner for having demanded Rs. 200/- and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 150 from Mr. Neeraj Kumar, for writing and registering the NCR relating to the missing mobile phone.

7. During the course of the aforesaid enquiry, the EO examined two prosecution witnesses in order to prove the duty roster, DD entries and the NCR, depicting that the Petitioner was on duty as DD writer on 06.09.2005 and the NCR with respect to the missing phone was in fact lodged. On the other hand, the Petitioner examined one defence witness. Notably, during this enquiry, despite efforts being made by the EO, neither Mr. Neeraj Kumar nor any representative of the Star News Channel appeared to give evidence.

8. Resultantly, the EO by way of the IF, found that although there was no direct oral evidence from the decoy or media personnel yet the video-CD of the telecast clearly depicted the Petitioner demanding and accepting money from a person for registration of the missing-mobile NCR. Placing a principal reliance on the said CD, the EO concluded that the charge against the Petitioner stood proved.

9. The aforesaid findings