Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5531
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, J, Rajinder Kashyap, A
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
O.A. No. 1960/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Nautiyal
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Singh
In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, and the authority must provide the delinquent officer a fair opportunity to respond to findings before imposing penalties.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Disciplinary proceedings against police officer for alleged bribery and misconduct - Applicant, a Sub-Inspector, was found guilty of demanding bribe and failing to conduct a fair investigation in a case, resulting in a penalty of forfeiture of service. (Paras 4, 24)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The disciplinary authority must provide the delinquent officer with an opportunity to respond to the disagreement note before finalizing the decision, ensuring that the inquiry is not predetermined. (Paras 16.1, 16.2)
(C) Standard of Proof - In disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, differing from criminal trials where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was charge-sheeted for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from a complainant during an investigation he conducted. The inquiry found insufficient evidence to prove the charge; however, the disciplinary authority disagreed and imposed a penalty. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's conclusion that the applicant failed to conduct a fair investigation and engaged in corrupt practices, affirming the imposed penalty. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to respond and if the disciplinary authority's decision was based on adequate evidence. (Paras 22, 23)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and that the disciplinary authority's findings were supported by the evidence presented during the inquiry. (Paras 21, 24)
Result: The original application was dismissed, affirming the disciplinary authority's orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. allegations and evidences against the applicant (Para 3 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. procedural issues in disciplinary inquiry (Para 6 , 12 , 17) |
| 4. standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings (Para 15 , 21) |
| 5. court's conclusion and dismissal of the application (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member(A): -
The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act., 1985, seeking the following relief under para 8 of the OA: -
“(A) Set aside and quash the Order-in- Appeal CG No. M080623- 123-002 No. 572-76/P. Sec / Joint CP/AP-II, dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Armed Police-II, Delhi.
(B)Set as and quash the Order in Original No. 3761-81/HAP(P- II)/3RD Bn. DAP, dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 3rd Batallion DAP, Delhi.
(C) Pass any other or further order /Directions to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined as Sub- Inspector (Exe.) with Delhi Police 3rd Battalion of Delhi Armed Police at Vikas Puri Police Lines Complex, New Delhi on 21.07.2008. During employment when he was posted as Sub- Inspector at Police Station Indira Gandhi International Airport (in short IGI Airport), he was entrusted with the investigation of case FIR No.282/2016 under Section 420/468/471 IPC and 12 Pass Port Act and while the matter was under investigation, one of the accused in the matter namely Mrs. Nirmala Bora filed a complaint against the applicant on 14.12.2021. In the said complaint, it was alleged that her son was arrested in case FIR No. 282/2016, under Section 420/468/271 IPC and 12 of the Passport Act by the applicant and was assaulted in police custody. It was further alleged that the applicant further demanded bribe of Rs. two lakhs for his easy bail. However, the same was settled at Rs. One Lakh. It was the case of prosecution that on 29.10.2021, Smt. Nirmala Bora gave a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the applicant at Kapashera, New Delhi after withdrawing the same from the account of her husband and it was stated that during departmental enquiry, Smt. Nirmala Bora provided a copy of the audio clip in a CD, wherein, it was alleged to contain the conversation of demand of bribe by the applicant.
3. The applicant contends that he was charge-sheeted and issued summary of allegations on 08.04.2022 purely on the basis of doctored, edited and manipulated CD, and though the applicant has strongly denied having demanded any bribefrom Smt. Nirmala Bora nor the same was paid by Smt. Nirmala Bora or her family members and during enquiry proceedings also the applicant objected to the authenticity of the CD but the objection of the applicant was brushed aside by both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellant Authority. In order to substantiate the allegations leveled against the applicant the department examined seven witnesses namely Constable Praveen Kumar, W/HC Kaushalya, Smt. Nirmala Bora, Shri Narender Singh Bora, SI Rajeev Gulati, Inspector Suneel Kumar and Ms Chitra Bora in the Departmental Enquiry. Despite summons, Mr. Ashutosh, son of Smt. Nirmala Bora and brother of Inspector Suneel Kumar, failed to appear for the Departmental Enquiry and was thus dropped from the array of witnesses and his statement recorded during the preliminary enquiry was marked as Ex. PW- 6/G.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was completed and the article of charge framed against the applicant which was duly replied by the applicant. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges framed and served upon the applicant were not proved by the Department and the same was recommended to the disciplinary authority. TheEnquiry Officer in his findings did not prove the charge. On receipt of the findings dated 17.03.2023 of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Aut
