Disciplinary proceedings must rely on legally admissible evidence; reliance on unproven electronic materials violates natural justice principles and justifies intervention by judicial review.

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 02.08.2016, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), in O.A. No. 2802/2013, titled Constable Sanjay Kumar Dubey v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions “11. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated, the OA is allowed. The report of theEO and the orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are quashed. The applicant will be entitled to all consequential benefits including the treatment of the period of suspension from 27.12.2005 to 23.12.2010, as a period spent on duty, but without back wages. The order shall be implemented within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The genesis of the matter lies in a complaint made by one Shri Chetan Prakash, wherein allegations were levelled against certain officials of the Delhi Police regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was stated to have been videographed by him. The said complainant also approached this Court by filing W.P. (Crl.) No. 1897/2005, titled Chetan Prakash v. State 2006:DHC:9900. This Court in the above said writ petition directed a vigilance enquiry to be conducted. Pursuant thereto, a vigilance enquiry was undertaken by the Vigilance Branch of the Delhi Police. During the said enquiry, it was alleged that the respondent, while being posted at P.S Dabri and performing patrolling duty on a government motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SN-4046, was found indulging in corrupt practices of accepting illegal gratification from bootleggers. The said allegation was founded primarily on a Compact Disc (CD), particularly Scene No. 6 thereof, which had been submitted by the complainant, Shri Chetan Prakash, before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

3. During the vigilance enquiry, Constable Shri Vijay Singh stated that he had viewed the CD and identified the respondent therein as the person accepting the alleged bribe.

4. Consequent to the vigilance enquiry, the respondent was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.12.2005. Thereafter, FIR No.383/2007 dated 07.05.2007 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988, was registered against him at Police Station Dabri.

5. The criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR culminated in acquittal of the accused persons, including the respondent, by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by judgment dated 12.08.2015, which was assailed by the State before this Court in Crl. A. No. 217/2017, titledState (GNCT of Delhi) v. Netrapal Singh & Ors., which was dismissed, thereby affirming the acquittal.

6. The order of suspension was revoked by the competent authority on 23.12.201 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent vide order dated 13.07.2011 under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.

7. The enquiry was initially entrusted to Inspector Shri Jagjit Singh and was thereafter conducted by Inspector Shri Dalip Kumar, who completed the proceedings and submitted his report holding that the charge against the respondent stood proved. The Inquiry Officer recorded that the respondent was on patrolling duty on 16