Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi OA No.881/2016 Order reserved on:13.11.2025 Order pronounced on:09.12.2025 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

1. ASI Sheel Kumar, Age 46 Group ‘C’, promotion No.5880/D (PIS No.28780448)

S/o Sh. Chandagi Ram R/o 157E, Krishan Garh Vasant Kunj, New Delhi DOB:02.01.1959.

2. Ct. Kuldeep No.2500 DAP Age 31 years, promotion (PIS No.28082584)

S/o Late Sh. Vijay Singh R/o H. No.1504, Block-C SGM Nagar, NIT Faridabad, Haryana DOB:01.04.1984. ... Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava)

Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through

1. The Chief Secretary Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat New Delhi.

2. The Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate (I.T.O.)

New Delhi.

3. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police Traffic (Ops.) Delhi.

4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police Traffic (SR), Delhi. ...Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. K.M. Singh)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicants and the impugned punishment order dated 15.07.2015 imposing the penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently along with treating the suspension period from 26.08.2013 to 06.05.2015 as ‘Not Spent on Duty’. The appellate order dated 08.01.2016 rejecting their appeal has also been assailed.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed as Constables in the Delhi Police on 10.07.1978 and 25.05.2008 respectively. Their service record has been unblemished and both have earned promotions in due course.

3. A joint departmental inquiry was initiated regarding alleged acceptance of illegal gratification from one Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, operator of Gramin Sewa vehicle, while the applicants were deployed at Tara Apartment, Greater Kailash Circle. Summary of allegations and list of 7 witnesses were supplied to the applicants.

4. During the inquiry, 5 departmental witnesses were examined. However, the material complainant/witness Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta never appeared, despite repeated summons, and sent an affidavit denying any transaction with the applicants.

5. The Inquiry Officer, despite absence of the material witness and despite the denial affidavit, held the charges as proved primarily relying on a video CD, the authorship, source, genuineness, chain of custody and certification of which was never established through any competent witness.

6. Counsel for the respondents submits that the E.O. has submitted his finding after considering the defence statement of the applicants and other material evidence which came out on record, during the DE proceeding.

7. On the other hand, counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant (material witness) never appeared in inquiry and instead denied allegations through affidavit.

8. He further submits that the video CD relied upon by the IO was never proved. As required under the Evidence Act and Delhi Police Rules, no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, no proof of source, no independent witness was recorded.

9. He submits that the IO ignored the detailed written defence submitted by the applicants.

10. He states that the findings are perverse, based on assumptions and not supported by legal evidence.

11. He also states that the punishment is disproportionate and violative of principles of natural justice.

12. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the inquiry was conducted as per rules and charges stood proved. He submits that the applicants’ contentions are factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record. The punishment order was passed on 16.07.2015, and not on 15.07.2015 as wrongly stated by the applicants. It stands admitted that the applicants were deployed at Tara Apartment, Greater Kailash Circle, and that the Enquiry Officer (EO) served the summary of alle