Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors vs Const. Chet Ram

$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11368/2006 & CM APPL. 8696/2006
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC
with ASI Mr. Devender Singh, Parvi Officer
Traffic
versus
CONST. CHET RAM .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 27.04.2026
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent was a constable with the Delhi Police.
2. A raid was conducted by the Office of the Public Redressal of
Grievances in the Delhi Police at Punjabi Bagh. A summary of
allegations dated 20 April 2001 was issued to the respondent, alleging
that the respondent, along with ASI Prem Singh had engaged
Dharmender Singh, a Home Guard Constable, to collect money on
their behalf from Blue Line buses who desired to enter into the
Punjabi Bagh Bus Terminal.
3. It is not in dispute that, though statements which were recorded
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
13:52:36
W.P.(C) 11368/2006 Page 1 of 6

1
during Preliminary Enquiry were inculpatory insofar as the
respondents were concerned, the said witnesses, which included the
driver, conductor and the home guard, during their depositions before
2
the Inquiry Officer , resiled from their earlier statements. There was
in fact no statement recorded before the IO which favoured the case of
the petitioner.
4. The IO, nonetheless, found the respondent guilty of the charge
against him on the basis of the statement of the home guard constable
which was recorded during PE. The respondent appealed against the
decision. The appeal was dismissed. The respondent was penalised
with the punishment of forfeiture of three years’ approved service
permanently entailing reduction in their pay from ₹ 5000 to ₹ 4700
and ₹ 3725 to ₹ 3500 respectively.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central
3
Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 2937/2004. By judgment
dated 8 March 2006, the Tribunal set aside the punishment awarded to
the respondent with consequential reliefs.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the Delhi Police has preferred the present
writ petition before us.
7. We have heard Mr. Himanshu Pathak, learned SPC for the
petitioner and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
1
“PE” hereinafter
2
“IO” hereinafter
3
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
13:52:36
W.P.(C) 11368/2006 Page 2 of 6

8. Mr. Pathak submits that the Tribunal erred in interfering the
well-reasoned decision of the IO, returned after considering the
evidence. He submits that the statements of the witnesses on which
the IO placed reliance were inculpatory against the respondent and
that the mere fact that they may have been recorded during the PE
could not rob them of all their evidentiary value. He further submits
that the mere fact that the witnesses may have turned hostile during
the inquiry proceedings could not be treated as a factor which
rendered the case one of no evidence.
9. He also invokes well-known judicial decisions on the point that
tribunals and courts should not interfere with the decisions of the
disciplinary authorities, on the merits of the matter.
10. Mr. Chhibber, on the other hand, submits that the case is fully
covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v.
4
Commissioner of Police and specifically draws attention to paras 28,
40, 41 and 43 thereof, which read thus:
“28. Rule 16(3) is almost akin to Sections 32 and 33 of the
Evidence Act. Before the Rule can be invoked, the factors
enumerated therein, namely, that the presence of the witness
cannot be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or
expense, have to be found to be existing as they constitute the
“condition precedent” for the exercise of jurisdiction for this
purpose. In the absence of these factors, the jurisdiction under
Rule 16(3) cannot be exercised.
*
40. To sum up, the charge against the appellant consisted of
two components, namely:
(a) On 22-2-1990, Smt Meena Mishra paid Rs 1000 to
4
(1999) 2 SCC 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
13:52:36
W.P.(C) 11368/2006 Page 3 of 6

the appellant for being paid to the three labourers.
(b) The appellant paid Rs 800 to the labourers and kept
Rs 200 with himself.
41. Smt Meena Mishra, appearing as a witness for the
Department, denied having made any payment to the appellant on
that day. The labourers to whom the payment is said to have been
made have not been produced at the domestic enquiry. Their so-
called previous statement could not have been brought on record
under Rule 16(3). As such, there was absolutely no evidence in
support of the charge framed against the appellant and the entire
findings recorded by the enquiry officer are vitiated by reason of
the fact that they are not supported by any evidence on record and
are wholly perverse.
*
43. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are allowed. The
judgment and order dated 28-2-1997 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The order dated 3-5-1991
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police by which the
appellant was dismissed from service as also the order passed in
appeal by the Additional Commissioner of Police are quashed and
the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant with all
consequential benefits including all the arrears of pay up to date
which shall be paid within three months from today. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Mr. Pathak is candid in his submissions that the PWs on whose
statements the petitioner placed reliance did not support the
petitioner’s case during inquiry. However, he submits that the
evidence recorded during PE, which was also relied upon in the
statement of imputations of misconduct against the respondent, could
not be ignored.
5
12. That submission cannot sustain in view of Rule 16(iii) of the

Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
13:52:36
W.P.(C) 11368/2006 Page 4 of 6

6
Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 which has also
been accorded the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep
Singh . The Supreme Court has clearly held that Rule 16(iii) of the DP
(P&A) Rules, which is akin to Sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence
Act, 1872, does not permit reliance on statements recorded during the
PE unless there is a finding on facts that the presence of the witness
could not be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense.
Besides the fact that there is no such finding in the present case, the
witnesses in question in fact appeared before the IO and did not stand
by their statements recorded during the PE.
13. If the statements recorded during PE are eschewed from
consideration, there is no evidence against the respondent.
14. It is also significant, in this context, that this is not a case in
which there were any eye witnesses to any transaction in which the
respondent was alleged to be involved. In fact, neither the respondent
nor ASI Prem Singh were anywhere near the spot where the money
was allegedly being collected. The allegation was that the Home
Guard Constable Dharmender Singh was hired by them to collect
money. Dharmender Singh, during his statement recorded before the
IO, did not support this statement. He clearly stated that he was not

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
13:52:36
W.P.(C) 11368/2006 Page 5 of 6

engaged by the respondent.
15. Moreover, even the driver and other witnesses whose
statements were relied upon, stated that they were not called upon to
make any payment for entry to the Punjabi Bagh Terminal.
16. We, therefore, concur with the Tribunal in its view that the case
is one of no evidence.
17. Where a case is one of no evidence, it is well-settled that a court
is not only empowered, but obligated, to interfere.
18. Incidentally, we may note that the impugned judgment also
decides OA 2918/2004 filed by Prem Singh, and that WP (C)
7
11348/2006 , which was filed by the Union of India against the
decision qua Prem Singh, was dismissed by this Court as he had
expired in the interregnum and his legal heirs could not be impleaded.
19. Accordingly, no case is made out for us to disturb the judgment
of the Tribunal which is upheld in its entirety. The writ petition is
dismissed with no orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
AR
APRIL 27, 2026/
7
Govt of NCT of Delhi v. ASI Prem Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:30.04.2026
13:52:36
W.P.(C) 11368/2006 Page 6 of 6