Commissioner Of Police And Ors vs Anil Kumar

$~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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 1 of 7

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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 2 of 7

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 departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probability, and
even DW 3 (Inspector Jai Kumar Bhardwaj) had accepted during
vigilance enquiry that staff of Kapshera Circle had become uncontrolled
due to illegal activities. It is submitted that the circumstances establish a
clear case against the Respondent.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent has
argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the
Respondent cannot be penalised on the basis of a dubious CD. He
submitted that in his capacity as a constable, the Respondent could not
even have issued challans to the plying vehicles. He further pointed out
that apart from SI Karan, the rest of the officers apparently found visible
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 3 of 7

in the video have been exonerated.
7. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is imperative to first
take note of the conduct of the Petitioners. On 23.07.2025, the
Predecessor Bench had noted that the Petitioners had been taking
repeated adjournments. Although no further adjournment has been sought
since then, despite granting repeated opportunities to the Petitioners, the
record of the departmental proceedings has still not been placed on
record. In such circumstances, this Court does not consider it appropriate
to adjourn the matter any further.
8. The short issue before this Court is whether there is sufficient
evidence on record to inflict penalty on the Respondent for purportedly
demanding and accepting money at the Kapashera Traffic Circle in lieu
of enabling a number of vehicles to ply on the said route.
9. Though seven prosecution witnesses were examined in the
departmental enquiry, as also noted by the learned Tribunal, the case of
the Petitioners is essentially hinged on the CD, which is said to contain
the video which evidences the Respondent allegedly receiving money.
Reference is also made to the statement of DW3, who had accepted in
vigilance proceedings that the staff at Kapashera Circle is indulged in
rampant illegal activities. It is argued that the said circumstances clearly
make out a case against the Respondent.
10. At the outset, it is surprising to note that although the Petitioners
have maintained throughout that the Respondent as well as his
counterparts and immediate superiors are visible in the video, peculiarly,
major penalty was only inflicted on the Respondent, and even SI Karan
was only censured due to his alleged lack of proper supervision over his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 4 of 7

staff. Rest of the officers, including one superior of the Respondent, have
been exonerated despite their presence at the spot where the Respondent
was allegedly demanding and accepting bribe. It belies logic that the
Respondent, who was only a Constable and admittedly not even
empowered to challan, would be able to indulge in such corrupt practices
in presence of other staff members, including his superiors, without their
complicity in the same. Despite the same, the Petitioners have only
chosen to pursue the matter against the Respondent.
11. Be that as it may, insofar as the genuineness of the CD and the
accompanying transcript is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that
the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are not perverse. As
rightly appreciated by the learned Tribunal, the original CD was not
produced during enquiry. No attempt was made to obtain a copy of the
original CD either, and further, no DD entry was made in relation to
receipt of the complaint as well as CD from Mr. Ajay Arora. Although he
was technically the original complainant in the case and he had given the
CD, Mr. Ajay Arora was not even listed as a witness, and rather, it is
apparent from vigilance proceedings that he had denied that he had given
any such CD to the Traffic Circle. There is no clarity whatsoever as to
who prepared the CD. The foundation of the case is further rendered
brittle as the person from whom the Respondent had allegedly taken
money–Joginder, had also never joined the departmental proceedings as
well as the vigilance enquiry, and he had clearly denied conducting any
sting.
12. In this respect, it is also important to take note of the findings of
the vigilance enquiry report in this regard. The same are as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 5 of 7

“ Complainant HC Ashok Kumar was asked to produce the person
who provided him the sting CD. He told his name as Joginder
Singh (xxxxxxxxxxx) He was called in front of the complainant and
was also asked to join the vigilance enquiry. Joginder denied that
he had never conducted any sting and also told that he has
already told this fact to the police. Moreover, the alleged stinger
Joginder never joined the vigilance enquiry on repeated
communication on his mobile phone and clearly told that he has
no complaint against any police officer. Another person namely
Ajay Arora (xxxxxxxxxxx), who allegedly given the sting CD in
the circle as told by HC Ashok, was also contacted, who told that
he had never given any CD to the traffic circle Kapashera or
anywhere else. Both were asked to join the enquiry, but they denied
by taking the plea that they are not connected with the recording,
hence unable to join the enquiry. Complainant HC Ashok Kumar
never produced them before me for the purpose of vigilance
enquiry on repeated opportunities. In the absence of the person
who conducted the sting and prepared the CD, the allegations of
the complainant could not be substantiated. ”
(emphasis supplied and contact numbers redacted)
13. Although it is well-settled that the technical rules of evidence are
not applicable in a departmental enquiry, no employee can be implicated
without any deference to the genuineness of the material sought to be
relied upon. Departmental proceedings being disjunct from the staunch
rules of evidence encompassed in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not
signify that the CD is to be accepted even when there is no clarity as to
who recorded the video. A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 is merely a means to authenticate the integrity of
digital evidence. Even if the same is not insisted upon in departmental
proceedings, to rely upon digital evidence, it was necessary that the
credibility of the evidence is ascertained in some manner to rule out
tampering, especially when such evidence forms the basis of the entire
allegations.
14. Even to meet the lower threshold of preponderance of probability
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 6 of 7

in departmental enquiry, there must be some clear and convincing
evidence to implicate the employee. Penalty based on questionable digital
evidence is unsustainable. When the CD itself has been rightly found to
be dubious and questionable, no benefit can be derived from any
assertion of general corruption at the concerned Traffic Circle by DW3.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the
impugned order does not warrant any interference.
16. The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
MARCH 9, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU
Signing Date:16.03.2026
18:10:55
W.P.(C) 9589/2024 Page 7 of 7