$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 9589/2024 & CM APPL. 39366/2024 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC & SI Abdul Barkat Pairvi Officer versus ANIL KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Arora & Ms. Radhika Arora, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. Through the present writ petition, the Petitioners have assailed the correctness of order dated 15.12.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed in O.A. No. 683/2022. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the Respondent and the order passed by disciplinary authority inflicting penalty on Respondent was set aside.

2. Briefly stated, in August, 2018, a complaint along with a CD was allegedly received from one Ajay Arora against traffic staff at the office of TI/Kapashera Traffic Circle. Allegedly, the CD revealed that the Respondent was demanding and accepting money from one public person, namely, Joginder. Four other staff members deployed at the Circle were also allegedly visible in the video, and were perceived to be part of the corrupt activities of the Respondent in taking money in lieu of plying a number of vehicles on the route. Pursuant to the same, although no official entry of the said complaint was made, HC Ashok Kumar was tasked with looking into the same. The said officer made a copy of the CD and attached the same with the complaint. In the vigilance proceedings, it was found that the allegations could not be substantiated in the absence of the person who conducted the sting and prepared the CD. Despite the same, on 29.12.2020, a joint departmental enquiry was initiated against the Respondent, SI Karan Singh and three other officers for gross misconduct unbecoming of police officers as well as dereliction of duty.

3. After completion of all codal formalities, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that the charge against all officers, including, the Respondent, was not proved. It was noted that the CD was not accompanied with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which made the same unreliable. After perusing the entire file, the Disciplinary Authority served a disagreement note dated 13.07.2021 wherein it was noted that the Enquiry Officer had failed to appreciate the material on record and erroneously discarded the CD even though the standard of proof in departmental enquiry is that of preponderance of probability. Despite the Respondent’s detailed reply against the same, by way of order dated 27.07.2021, the Disciplinary Authority ultimately inflicted a major penalty of forfeiture of two years of approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay. Further, SI Karan Singh was awarded the punishment of Censure for his lack of supervision. The Respondent’s appeal against the punishment was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 25.01.2022.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent had filed O.A. No. 683/2022, which was allowed by way of the impugned order. The Respondent was found to be entitled to all consequential benefits and the competent authority was directed to pass necessary orders in this regard. It was noted that the very foundation of the case had come into question due to the genuineness of the CD being questionable.

5. Before this Court, it is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the Disciplinary Authority had weighed the entire material on record before inflicting the penalty on the Respondent. It is submitted that the Respondent was seen demanding and taking money on video to allow vehicles to ply on the concerned route, and he has been erroneously exonerated on account of the CD not being accompanied with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is emphasised that the standard of proof in d