Commissioner Of Police, Delhi And Ors. vs Umesh Kumar

$~133
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010494302026
+ W.P.(C) 15175/2026, CM APPL. 71267/2026, CM APPL.
71268/2026, CM APPL. 71269/2026
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kshitij Chhabra, SPC with
Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi GP and ASI Devinder
& SI Dharampal
versus
UMESH KUMAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan and Ms.
Ridhi Dua, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 28.10.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent, who was a Head Constable in the Delhi Police,
was subjected to departmental proceedings following a charge sheet
dated 01 July, 2021, along with ASI (Exe.) Manoj Kumar.
2. The charge against the respondent, as contained in the charge
sheet, read thus:
“On 30.12.2020 an information vide DD No. 34A was received at
PS Alipur that two Constables of Delhi Police who were deployed
at Singhu border have been taken away by two Sikh persons
towards Haryana side. The same was entrusted to SI Sachin of PS
Alipur who reached the spot and HC Umesh No 1152/T was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 1 of 11

handed over to him by Haryana Police. On enquiry it was revealed
that ASI Manoj, No. 1134/T (PIS No. 28881095) and HC Umesh
No.1152/T (PIS No. 28892564) had gone towards Haryana side
after crossing the border to consume alcohol. Some argument took
place between farmer agitators and them across the border
(Haryana Side).
Sensing the graveness of situation ASI Manoj Kumar 1134/T fled
from the spot when unknown protestor beat up HC Umesh Kumar
1134/T HC Umesh was got medically examined vide MLC
No.9853/2020 at BSA Hospital Rohini. ASI Manoj No. 1134/T
who was posted at Traffic Lines, Todapur and HC Umesh no
1152/T who was posted at Kotwali traffic circle had reported for
arrangement duty in traffic circle Narela with regard to Farmers
Agitation at Singhu Border vide DD No. 28 dated 29.12.2020
traffic circle Narela and DD No. 37 of Kotwali circle. At 11.00 AM
SI Omender, 1256/D of Narela Circle checked them and both of
them were found absent from their duty point Singhu cut and were
marked absent vide DD No.12 dated 30.12.2020. The Addl. DCP-1
Rohini District Sh. Jitender Meena told that after taking alcohol
they tried to climb on the stage of Agitators and started talking
nonsense which could have disturbed the peace. Protestors got
agitated and started beating them. They were, rescued by Haryana
Police. As per medical report of HC Umesh, the BAC is
36mg/100ml means he consumed alcohol.
Further ASI Manoj has been escaping since then and his medical
could not be conducted. ASI Manoj was tried to be contacted over
phone by SI Anandpal No. 5798/T of Narela circle, his daughter
picked up the phone and informed that her father has gone to
hospital. Thereafter, he was again contacted when his phone was
found switched off. Later on, SI Omender No. 1256/T of Narela
circle went to his official residence in Shalimar Bagh where it was
learnt that he had vacated the quarter two months back and
neighbors do not know about his present address. As per the order
of senior officers, both of them have been suspended vide DD
No.21 dated 30.12.2020 Todapur Traffic Lines. Further statement
of HC Umesh was recorded wherein he admitted that he along with
ASI Manoj crossed the border and consumed liquor from shop in
Haryana. There a scuffle took place between them and some Sikh
persons who beat them up badly.
The above act on the part of ASI Manoj, No. 1134/T (PIS No.
28881095) and HC Umesh No.1152/T (PIS No.28892564)
amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and lack of sincerity and
dedication in discharge of official duties and unbecoming of a
police official which renders them liable for departmental action
under the provision of Delhi police (Punishment and Appeal)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 2 of 11

Rules- 1980.”
3. In his defence to the aforesaid charge sheet, the respondent did
not dispute the fact that he was found to have consumed liquor. There
1
was an MLC report, as well, which confirmed the fact that he had
consumed liquor. The case set up by the respondent, in his written
defence to the charge sheet, was that he and ASI Manoj Kumar had
crossed the Singhu Border into Haryana to have tea, as there was no
tea stall on the Delhi side of the border and that certain miscreants had
accosted the respondent and taken into their premises, where they
forced alcohol down through his throat. The respondent also agreed to
submit himself to a medical examination to confirm the fact that a
scuffle had taken place.
4. Admittedly, no such stand was adopted by Manoj Kumar, who
completely denied the allegation of having crossed the border with the
respondent.
5. In the disciplinary proceedings which were jointly conducted
against the respondent and Manoj Kumar, the Inquiry Officer held the
charges against both of them to stand proved and concluded as under:
“After going through the statements of PWs, DWs, replies/Defence
statements of the delinquents ASI Manoj Kumar No.1134/T and
HC Umesh No.1152/T, relevant documents/records available on
DE file and discussion made above, I have come to a conclusion
that the Charges against delinquents ASI Manoj Kumar No.1134/T
and HC Umesh No.1152/T that on 30/12/2020, while deployed for
duty at Singhu Border cut in connection with Farmers' agitation
they got themselves unauthorizedly absent from duty point, went to
a wine shop in the area of Haryana after crossing borders,
consumed liquor and also had a scuffle with some farmers have
1
Medico Legal Case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 3 of 11

been proved during the Departmental Enquiry proceedings.”
6. Following the findings in the enquiry report, the respondent
and Manoj Kumar were dismissed from service.
7. The respondent, as well as Manoj Kumar, approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the decision to dismiss
them from service vide OA 3194/2022 and OA 84/2023.
8. The present challenge, at the instance of the Delhi Police, is to
the judgment dated 12 May, 2026 rendered by the Tribunal in OA
84/2023.
9. Both the OAs, i.e. filed by Manoj Kumar and the respondent,
were allowed by the Tribunal.
10. The Delhi Police filed WP (C) 10175/2024, challenging the
judgment dated 8 March 2024 passed by the Tribunal in OA
3194/2022 filed by Manoj Kumar. Vide judgment dated 31 January
2025, the writ petition was dismissed.
11. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned
Counsel for the respondent, had sought to submit that, inasmuch as the
respondent and Manoj Kumar had jointly been subjected to
departmental proceedings and exonerated, and as the exoneration of
Manoj Kumar had been upheld by the Tribunal as well as by this
court, no different fate could visit his client.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 4 of 11

12. When this aspect was put to Mr. Kshitij Chhabra, learned SPC
appearing for Delhi Police, he placed reliance on a hand written
th
statement of the respondent dated 30 December 2020, purportedly
confessing to the allegations against him.
13. We, therefore, called upon Mr. Kshitij Chhabra to advance
submissions as to whether the said statement could have been relied
upon, when it was not proved in evidence, in view of the judgment of
2
the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank .
14. Today, Mr. Kshitij Chhabra submits that the decision in Roop
Singh Negi is distinguishable, as there was no other evidence against
the appellant Roop Singh Negi in that case, save and except his
confessional statement.
15. We are only in agreement with Mr. Kshitij Chhabra, qua this
submission, in part. Paras 14, 15 and 16 of the decision in Roop
Singh Negi read thus:
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial
proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function.
The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found
to have been proved . The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a
finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by
itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents.
The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did
not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by
the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence
2
(2009) 2 SCC 570
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 5 of 11

whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the
purported confession made by the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said
confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant
being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have
been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record
to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book.
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no
indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the
enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as
otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the
offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.
3
16. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel it was held:
“22. … The two infirmities are separate and distinct though,
conceivably, in some cases both may be present. There may
be cases of no evidence even where the Government is
acting bona fide; the said infirmity may also exist where the
Government is acting mala fide and in that case, the
conclusion of the Government not supported by any
evidence may be the result of mala fides but that does not
mean that if it is proved that there is no evidence to support
the conclusion of the Government, a writ of certiorari will
not issue without further proof of mala fides. That is why
we are not prepared to accept the learned Attorney
General's argument that since no mala fides are alleged
against the appellant in the present case, no writ of
certiorari can be issued in favour of the respondent.
23. That takes us to the merits of the respondent's
contention that the conclusion of the appellant that the third
charge framed against the respondent had been proved, is
based on no evidence. The learned Attorney General has
stressed before us that in dealing with this question, we
ought to bear in mind the fact that the appellant is acting
with the determination to root out corruption, and so, if it is
shown that the view taken by the appellant is a reasonably
possible view this Court should not sit in appeal over that
decision and seek to decide whether this Court would have
taken the same view or not. This contention is no doubt
absolutely sound. The only test which we can legitimately
apply in dealing with this part of the respondent's case is, is
there any evidence on which a finding can be made against
the respondent that Charge 3 was proved against him? In
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea,
3
AIR 1964 SC 364
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 6 of 11

the High Court cannot consider the question about the
sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a
particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the
competence of the authority which deals with the question;
but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is
any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion.
In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the
enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that
the charge in question is proved against the respondent?
This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take
the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that
evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.
Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the
respondent's grievance is well founded, because, in our
opinion, the finding which is implicit in the appellant's
order dismissing the respondent that Charge 3 is proved
against him is based on no evidence.”
16. The decision in Roop Singh Negi , therefore, makes it clear that
the petitioner cannot seek to rely on the allegedly confessional hand-
written statement of the respondent as it had not been proved in
evidence or even put to the respondent at any point of time.
17. We, therefore, are not able to accept Mr. Kshitij Chhabra’s
submission that the existence of the hand-written statement of the
respondent can constitute a basis to distinguish the present case from
the case of ASI Manoj Kumar.
18. Matters, however, do not rest there.
19. As we have already noticed, there were other vital differences
between the case of the respondent and that of Manoj Kumar. Manoj
Kumar had flatly refused having crossed the border or having
consumed any alcohol, whereas the respondent admitted the fact that
he had crossed the border and consumed alcohol.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 7 of 11

20. The respondent’s defence was, however, that the consumption
of alcohol by him was involuntary, as alcohol had been forced down
his throat by certain persons who had waylaid him after he had
crossed the border to have tea, and taken him to their premises.
21. The Tribunal has, in the impugned judgment, noted this
difference in paragraph 13, which reads thus:
“13. The applicant in his reply to the summary of allegations
(Annexure A-6) has denied the allegations and he has submitted
that when he was performing his duties on 29/30.12.2020 he had
gone to take tea with ASI Manoj Kumar at a nearby vendor as there
was no tea vendor nearby on Delhi side. When he had taken tea,
the applicant was stopped on the way by some Nihang Sardars and
said that the applicant was doing surveillance on their activities.
They called other Nihang Sardars and started beating the applicant
mercilessly. They also took the applicant on first floor of some
building nearby and then poured the alcohol in the mouth of the
applicant forcefully and also started creating nuisance. Admittedly
the applicant was medically examined and the Doctor in its report
(Annexure A-11) has reported physical assault. However, such
defence of the applicant has not been considered and/or appreciated
even remotely by the Inquiry Officer. Admittedly, the impugned
disciplinary and appellate orders are based on the findings of the
Inquiry Officer about the applicant’s alleged admission on
30.12.2020 before the ACP/T/Outer Delhi who has not proved the
said statement by being produced as a prosecution witness. With
regard to the evidence of PW-9, i.e. SI Sachin, the Tribunal’s
judgment in the case of ASI Manoj Kumar and read with the
order/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 31.01.2025 in the
aforesaid Writ Petition speaks in volume.”
22. Thus, the Tribunal has observed that the defense of the
respondent was that he had crossed the Singhu Border to have tea, that
he had been taken away by certain Nihang Sardar, beaten up
mercilessly, transported to the first floor of a building and that alcohol
had been forced down his throat. The fact that he had consumed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 8 of 11

alcohol is also proved by his MLC.
23. However, having noted these facts, the Tribunal has allowed the
respondent’s OA merely following the judgment in Manoj Kumar .
24. We are of the view that the Tribunal could not have followed
the decision in Manoj Kumar without rendering a finding regarding
the effect of the differentiating features between the case of the
respondent and Manoj Kumar, especially as Manoj Kumar had denied
having crossed the border, for which there was no evidence available,
whereas the respondent had acknowledged having crossed the border,
albeit to have tea and sought to explain the fact that he was found to
have consumed alcohol by certain Nihang Sardars had taken him
forcibly to their premises and forced alcohol down his throat.
25. As the Tribunal has noted these differentiating features but has
not rendered any finding therein and has merely followed its earlier
judgment in Manoj Kumar, the impugned judgment cannot sustain.
26. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.
27. We remit OA 84/2023 to the Tribunal for consideration afresh,
specifically with respect to the defence which had been taken by the
respondent before the IO and before the Tribunal, explaining the fact
that he was found on the other side of the border having consumed
alcohol.
28. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 9 of 11

opinion on whether the said defence should, or should not, be
accepted. The Tribunal would be within its liberty to take a view in
that regard after hearing learned Counsel for the parties.
29. We, however, reiterate our finding that the confessional
statement said to have been provided by the respondent on a hand-
written sheet cannot be relied upon against him in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi .
30. The Tribunal would be, therefore, required to return a finding
on the sustainability or otherwise of the defence advanced by the
respondent, especially in view of the fact that he had been found on
the other side of the border with liquor in him.
31. We make it clear, once again, that the Tribunal would be at
liberty to take a call on the above aspect one way or other. We should
not be treated as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the
respondent’s defence. In other words, it would be open to the
Tribunal to either maintain or modify its earlier decision or arrive at
any other conclusion, as it would deem appropriate.
32. Needless to say, both sides would be heard before any decision
is taken.
33. To expedite matters, we direct learned Counsel for the parties to
appear before the Tribunal on 16 November 2026.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 10 of 11

34. Neither side would be entitled to seek any adjournment on the
said date.
35. We also request the Tribunal to hear the parties on the said date
as it involves a dismissal, and to pass orders thereon after hearing the
parties as expeditiously as possible thereafter.
36. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
14:56:08
W.P.(C) 15175/2026 Page 11 of 11