1. Dismissal challenged — Acquittal in criminal case — Departmental enquiry on same charges — Validity of rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Ajab Singh – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Police – Respondent
W.P.(C) 10484/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Singal
For the Respondents: Akash Vajpai, Priyanshu
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anil Singal
For the Respondents: Akash Vajpai, Priyanshu
Departmental proceedings are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities; thus, an acquittal on benefit of doubt in a criminal trial does not preclude a finding of guilt in a departmental enquiry, especially when rules allow reliance on statements of unavailable witnesses.
Headnote:(A) Departmental Enquiry - Standard of Proof - Preponderance of Probabilities - Acquittal in a criminal case on the benefit of doubt does not automatically absolve a government servant of charges in a departmental proceeding, as the standard of proof required in the latter is the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 32, 56)
(B) Procedural Rules - Reliance on Previous Statements - Rule 15(3) and 16(iii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 - Bringing on record statements of witnesses who are unavailable or untraceable is permissible and not ultra vires to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, provided the procedural safeguards are followed. (Para 34, 38, 57)
(C) Natural Justice - Right to Cross-Examination - Where material witnesses are unavailable, the charged officer's right to a fair trial is preserved by allowing the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer who recorded the statements to challenge their credibility. (Para 38)
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was valid despite his acquittal in the criminal case and the non-examination of star witnesses in the departmental enquiry.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued acquittal bars departmental proceedings and rules violate natural justice; respondents argued distinct standards of proof. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not bar departmental proceedings. Rules allow use of prior statements when witnesses unavailable. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 56 , 57 )
4. Departmental proceedings require only preponderance of probabilities. Use of prior statements when witnesses are unavailable is valid. (Para 32 , 38 , 57 , 58 )
5. Petition dismissed: challenge to rules rejected, acquittal no bar, findings based on evidence, punishment proportionate. (Para 58 )
6. Can a departmental enquiry proceed on the same charges after an acquittal in a criminal case?
Yes, because the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 32 , 33 )
7. Are Rules 15(3) and 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 ultra vires Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
No. The rules are valid as they provide procedural safeguards and apply only when witnesses are unavailable, ensuring fair enquiry. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 57 )
8. Is the non-examination of material witnesses fatal to a departmental enquiry?
Not necessarily. Under the rules, the Investigating Officer can prove their prior statements when witnesses are untraceable, and the delinquent can cross-examine the officer. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 57 )
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in Original Application being O.A No.2302/2005, with the following prayers:-
“a) Issue order, directions or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned Judgment dt.12.12.2025 in the OA No.2302/2005 and declare Rule 15(3) and 16(iii) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal rules, 1980 ultra vires to the Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Further, grant a1l the relives prayed for in OA No.2302/2005 with all consequential benefits.
b) Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded in favor of Petitioner and against the respondents and
c) Any other orders, writ, or direction that may be deemed appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case be also be passe d.”
2. The facts as noted are that the petitioner herein was working as a Constable in Delhi Police as Wireless Operator attached with ACP/Pahar Ganj. An First Information Report (FIR) No.14/1996 under Section 395/397/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 27/54/59 of Arms Act, 1957 was registered against the petitioner including Inspector Nawal Kishore, the then Addl. SHO/Nabi Karim and three persons, namely S/Shri Dhir Singh (Constable), Bhisham Kumar (Constable) and Balkishan at PS Mahipalpur on 18.3.1996. The petitioner was suspended on 18.3.1996 and thereafter, vide order dated 22.3.1996, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India, 1950
3. In the aforementioned FIR, the petitioner and co-accused were acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 18.01.2000. Since, the petitioner was not reinstated in the service, he approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide an order dated 02.09.2003 quashed the punishment order dated 22.03.1996. Pursuant to the petitioner’s reinstatement, a Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated vide order dated 04.06.2004 on the same set of allegations, which led to the registration of the aforesaid FIR. An Enquiry Officer (EO) was appointed to conduct the enquiry and the Memorandum dated 12.07.2004 was issued to the petitioner wherein the Summary of Allegations was issued. The petitioner submitted an application for seeking additional documents to submit his defence. According to him, neither the documents were provided nor were any reasons given by the EO for non-supply of the same.
4. The case of the petitioner was that the EO framed charges on the same set of allegations against him and the co-accused though there were neither any material nor any evidence to frame charges and it shows total non- application of mind on the part of the EO. The petitioner submitted a list of defence witnesses, but EO allowed only 06 witnesses. The EO submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority, the authority agreeing with the finding of the EO, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply. The Authority vide order dated 19.02.2005 dismissed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The same was rejected vide order dated 18.08.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the OA before the Tribunal.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal was that: -
5.1 The charges/allegations before the learned Trial Court as well as before the departmental authorities are the same and the witnesses as well as evidence in both the proceedings are identical and once the defense of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated by the complainant in the said criminal case has been accepted by the learned Trial Court of competent jurisdiction in the absence of any incriminating evidence against him, the Disciplinary Enquiry is liable to be set aside/quashed, having
