Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Hostile Witnesses and Departmental Proceedings - A witness who turns hostile can still be considered a trustworthy witness and their evidence can be relied upon, even if they oppose the case ["Vijay Bahadur vs Commissioner of Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C. Laxmi Chand - Delhi"], ["Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C.Laxmi Chand - Delhi"]. The law recognizes that hostility does not equate to being won over, and such witnesses may be cross-examined by the producing party ["Vijay Bahadur vs Commissioner of Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Initiation of Departmental Proceedings Against Public Servants - Departmental proceedings can be initiated irrespective of the outcome of criminal trials, including after acquittals or witnesses turning hostile, provided there is sufficient evidence or material to establish misconduct Tahir Ali Khan Tyagi. The proceedings are quasi-judicial and based on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt ["Vijay Bahadur vs Commissioner of Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Rakesh Kapoor VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Rakesh Kapoor VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"].
Validity and Procedure of Departmental Enquiries - Proper initiation requires framing charges with a list of witnesses, and adherence to rules and natural justice. Non-examination of certain witnesses or procedural lapses do not necessarily vitiate the entire proceeding if the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority and in accordance with rules ["Jagdish Paswan VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Nawal Kishore Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C.Laxmi Chand - Delhi"].
Hostility and Misconduct - Turning hostile is not itself misconduct; however, a public servant's act of turning hostile in criminal or departmental proceedings can be considered misconduct if it promotes corrupt conduct or hampers the investigation ["Dr. O.P. Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["SRI. S.N. JAGADISH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Departmental Proceedings and Criminal Cases - Departmental proceedings can be initiated even if a criminal case results in acquittal, especially when based on evidence in the department's possession, and are not barred by the criminal trial outcome ["Rakesh Kapoor VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Rakesh Kapoor VS State of H. P. - Himachal Pradesh"]. The proceedings are separate and follow a different standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities) from criminal trials (beyond reasonable doubt) ["Vijay Bahadur vs Commissioner of Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Analysis and Conclusion:A witness turning hostile does not preclude the initiation of departmental proceedings if there is sufficient material to prove misconduct. Such proceedings are permissible against public servants regardless of criminal trial outcomes, including after witnesses have turned hostile or have been declared hostile. The process must adhere to principles of natural justice, and procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate the enquiry. Hostility in witnesses, while problematic, does not automatically amount to misconduct unless linked to corrupt conduct or deliberate obstruction. Therefore, departmental proceedings can be initiated against a public servant even when witnesses turn hostile, provided the department has enough evidence to establish misconduct ["Vijay Bahadur vs Commissioner of Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C. Laxmi Chand - Delhi"], ["Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C.Laxmi Chand - Delhi"].
In high-stakes legal battles, witnesses play a pivotal role, but what happens when a public servant witness flips their testimony and turns hostile? This scenario raises a critical question for government employees, departments, and legal practitioners: When a witness turns hostile, can departmental proceeding be initiated if he is public servant?
Turning hostile—where a witness deviates from their prior statement—can undermine cases, especially in corruption or criminal matters involving public servants like police or officials. While it might suggest misconduct, Indian service laws don't provide a blanket trigger for disciplinary action. Instead, proceedings follow general principles of misconduct under rules like the Civil Services Conduct Rules. This post breaks down the legal landscape, drawing from key judgments and guidelines to help you understand the nuances.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
A hostile witness is one who, during trial or enquiry, contradicts their earlier statement, often under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Their evidence isn't automatically discarded; it can still be relied upon if trustworthy. As held in a Delhi High Court case, The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, a witness who turns hostile cannot be termed as a witness who has been won over. Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C.Laxmi Chand
For public servants, this raises concerns about unbecoming conduct. However, turning hostile alone doesn't equate to misconduct. One judgment clarifies: It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1689 In fact, Turning hostile, by itself, is not an offence and cannot be punished in a disciplinary enquiry. Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1689
Departmental proceedings against public servants for witness-related misconduct are governed by conduct rules, such as Rule 3 of the Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: no Government servant shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of the Government. Commandant, SAR CPL, Hyderabad VS M. Ramesh - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122
Key points include:- Hostile witness status doesn't automatically trigger proceedings or discard evidence. Commandant, SAR CPL, Hyderabad VS M. Ramesh - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122- Misconduct must be linked to specific allegations, like being won over or terrorizing witnesses, but presumptions are hard to draw: it would be difficult to brand a witness who turned hostile is a witness who has been won over. Commandant, SAR CPL, Hyderabad VS M. Ramesh - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122- In corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, witness hostility is common but doesn't alone prove public servant guilt. Mohd. Saleem Khan vs State Of U.P. Thur. Superintendent Of Police Central Bureau - 2025 Supreme(All) 2848
Proceedings can stem from broader misconduct, even if witnesses turn hostile during enquiries. Chhatrapal Sahu, S/o. Shri Khilawan Ram Sahu VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Secretary Department of Home Affairs - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 403
Initiation isn't barred by criminal acquittals but must be bona fide:- Permissible post-acquittal, but undue delay (e.g., 9-10 years), bias, or pretext vitiates it: Proceeding initiated after an unexplained period of nine years - Copies of some documents were not supplied - Assistance of the departmental representative was denied - CAT rightly concluded that conduct of the Inquiry Officer has been throughout biased. Union of India VS Naman Singh Sekhawat - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 500- No second enquiry allowed: No second departmental enquiry can be held against a public servant. Dwarkachand VS State of Rajasthan - 1957 0 Supreme(Raj) 154- Consider prior exonerations; fresh proceedings need strong basis. Mahesh Rai Yadav Tribhuwan Rai VS Board of Directors, Fatehpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank - 2006 Supreme(All) 1029
Even in criminal cases, departmental action can proceed independently: Involvement in a criminal case, even if acquitted, does not preclude an employer from taking disciplinary action. Mahesh Rai Yadav Tribhuwan Rai VS Board of Directors, Fatehpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank - 2006 Supreme(All) 1029
Once initiated via charge memo, enquiries must follow natural justice:- Present witnesses, allow cross-examination, supply documents. Failure violates principles: No document was exhibited by Presenting Officer and no witness has been examined in support of charges – No oral enquiry was conducted... Enquiry report is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. Lal Babu Yadav VS State of Bihar - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 144- Legal representation is discretionary: it is left to the discretion of the officer holding the enquiry to allow, or refuse to allow, a lawyer to represent the delinquent officer. NARAYAN DAS VS STATE - 1967 0 Supreme(Ori) 26- Bias by Enquiry Officer or unexamined witnesses can quash proceedings. M. Vembulu VS Superintendent of Police, Madurai District - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4095
In one case, a constable's enquiry for bribe demand was upheld due to substantial compliance, despite hostile elements. Chhatrapal Sahu, S/o. Shri Khilawan Ram Sahu VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Secretary Department of Home Affairs - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 403
Several factors can derail proceedings:- Delay/Laches: Initiating years later (e.g., 1983 incident claimed post-1990s) without contemporaneous embarrassment. Union of India VS Naman Singh Sekhawat - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 500- No Automatic Misconduct: Hostile evidence retains value if trustworthy. Commandant, SAR CPL, Hyderabad VS M. Ramesh - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs H.C.Laxmi Chand- Post-Retirement/Death: Proceedings may lapse on superannuation or death unless rules allow continuation (e.g., Jharkhand Pension Rules). Brij Kumar VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 20Lakhi Devi VS Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board - 2016 Supreme(Jhk) 1471- Non-Speaking Orders: Must reference specific rules; otherwise, violates natural justice. STATE OF U. P. VS MANOJ KUMAR SINGH - 2010 Supreme(All) 768- Opportunity to Defend: Essential before punishment, even post-retirement. Biswanath Mitra VS State Of Bihar - 2002 Supreme(Pat) 609
Demand proof is crucial in corruption traps; mere recovery without it fails. Mohd. Saleem Khan vs State Of U.P. Thur. Superintendent Of Police Central Bureau - 2025 Supreme(All) 2848Shesh Mani Mishra VS State of M. P. (Now C. G. ) through - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 170
These illustrate that while possible, initiation demands robust, unbiased grounds.
For departments:- Issue charge memo under conduct rules, documenting bona fides and timeliness.- Link hostility to proven misconduct, not mere status.- Ensure enquiry compliance to withstand challenges.
For public servants:- Challenge on delay, bias, or prior exonerations.- Demand documents, representation, and witness opportunities.
Departmental proceedings may be initiated against a public servant turning hostile if tied to unbecoming conduct, but not automatically. They require bona fides, no delay, and natural justice adherence, with hostile status alone insufficient. Evidence usability persists, complicating claims. Commandant, SAR CPL, Hyderabad VS M. Ramesh - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122Union of India VS Naman Singh Sekhawat - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 500
Key Takeaways:- Follow general service rules; no special hostile witness procedure.- Avoid second enquiries or biased processes. Dwarkachand VS State of Rajasthan - 1957 0 Supreme(Raj) 154- Courts scrutinize post-criminal actions closely.
Stay informed on service laws to navigate these complexities. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
References:1. Commandant, SAR CPL, Hyderabad VS M. Ramesh - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 122 - Hostile witnesses in police enquiries.2. Union of India VS Naman Singh Sekhawat - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 500 - Bona fides and delay.3. Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja VS State of Maharashtra - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 1689 - Turning hostile not misconduct per se.4. Others as cited inline.
#HostileWitness, #DepartmentalProceedings, #PublicServantLaw
The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, a witness who turns hostile cannot be termed as a witness who has been won over. ... The Disciplinary Authority, however, invoking the Rule 12 (b) of the Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 initiated the departmental proceeding on the premise that the witnesses had been won over by the accused. ... In Khurshid Ahmad (Supra) the prosecut....
The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, a witness who turns hostile cannot be termed as a witness who has been won over. ... The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, it was held that it would be difficult to brand a witness who turns hostile, to be a witness#HL_END....
The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, a witness who turns hostile cannot be termed as a witness who has been won over. ... The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, it was held that it would be difficult to brand a witness who turns hostile, to be a wi....
Criminal misconduct by a public servant. ... In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. ... Witness turning hostile is a major disturbing factor faced by the criminal courts....
The petitioner raised the points that the departmental proceeding was conducted dehors the rules; that no witness was examined to prove; that proceeding was initiated under a repealed law; that the petitioner deposited the entire amount when there was dispute relating to hand over the charge of the amount ... Nehru Mahto, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and th....
(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence ... The report of the incident was sent to higher authorities and on the basis of the report, departmental enquiry was initiated against complainant-Bholaram. In the departmental enquiry, on 03.01.1987, sta....
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court towards the cross-examination of Witness No.4 namely, Pritam Das, son of Mohan Das and after examination-in-chief, after declaring the said witness hostile, the Enquiry Officer has examined in the form of cross-examination. ... However, during the enquiry proceeding, the delinquent officer has not made any such request before the enquiry officer and, therefore, he could not claim lacunae in the departmental proceeding#HL_....
While working as a Peon (Watchman), disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum of charge sheet dated 02.02.2005 on the charge that he had turned hostile during the trial in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2004 against another peon Shri Sayed Alim S/o Sayyed Mohiuddin, which ... It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public office would ipso facto constitute misconduct. ... One may morally expect a witness....
He, therefore, contends that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and that it would be an empty formality as the complainant has expired and all the other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. ... It is submitted that the definition of the public servant as per Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Lokayuktha Act is as below: "2(12) "Public Servant" means a person who is or was at any time. ... PW.2 is the p....
Criminal misconduct by a public servant - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, (d) if he- (i) by corrupt or illegal means obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains ... A departmental proceeding was -initiated. He was found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the Enquiry officer, wh....
Vacuum of law in this context is that what recourse is available if a departmental proceeding has been initiated while the public servant is in service but during its pendency if the public servant superannuates then what recourse is to be taken.
The imposition of penalty like dismissal or removal has nexus to the contract of service. It is well-settled that a departmental proceeding can be initiated against the Government servant for the purpose of imposing penalty if misconduct is established. The proceeding, therefore, automatically lapse or terminated by reason of death of delinquent employee unless otherwise it is continued in accordance with Rules.
That apart, absence of reference to provisions where-under alone a departmental proceeding can be initiated against a public servant and he can be punished, would make such an order of punishment unsustainable in law. It may also amount to violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the public servant would be deprived of vital information about the provisions of law where-under he is being proceeded against in the departmental inquiry so that he could properly defend himself. Thus, passing of a non-speaking and scanty order would not be justified.
In 2004 (3) AWC 2718 (SC), [2004 (102) FLR 1043], JT 2004 (6) SC 349, (2004) III LLJ 526 SC , 2004 (6) SCALE 585, (2004) 6 SCC 482, 2005 (1) SLJ 52 (SC), (2004) 3 uplbec 2574 , Allahabad District Cooperative Bank v. Viddya Viruddh Mishra, the similar view has been taken by the Apex Court that it is not necessary to wait for the decision of the criminal case. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am opinion that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent. The departmental proceeding can be initiated and a person can be punished.
While he was in service a departmental proceeding was initiated. He retired from the service with effect from 31.12.1998. After submission of enquiry report punishment was inflicted vide order contained in letter dated 27.8.1997, Annexure-11.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
