Delhi HC Sends Dismissed Head Constable’s Case Back To Tribunal To Assess Claim Nihangs Forced Him To Drink

The respondent, a Delhi Police Head Constable, was dismissed after a joint departmental inquiry found that he and ASI Manoj Kumar had left their duty point at Singhu Border, crossed into Haryana, consumed alcohol and had a scuffle with farmers

The respondent admitted crossing the border and consuming alcohol, but maintained that he had gone to have tea and that Nihang persons beat him and forcibly poured alcohol down his throat; his medical report recorded physical assault

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his challenge to the dismissal, following its earlier decision in Manoj Kumar’s case.

The Delhi Police challenged that decision; the High Court had already dismissed the Police’s challenge to the Tribunal’s decision in Manoj Kumar’s case

The Police also sought to rely on a handwritten statement attributed to the respondent, which had not been proved in evidence or put to him

Under Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, a departmental inquiry is quasi-judicial, and material relied upon to establish a charge must be brought into evidence; an unproved confession cannot support a finding of guilt

Under Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364, judicial review does not permit reweighing the sufficiency of evidence, but the court may examine whether any evidence supports the finding

The charge sheet invoked the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980

The High Court held that the handwritten statement could not distinguish the respondent’s case from Manoj Kumar’s because it had not been proved or put to the respondent

However, the cases materially differed: Manoj Kumar denied crossing the border and consuming alcohol, whereas the respondent admitted crossing the border and consuming alcohol, while claiming that the alcohol was forced upon him after he was assaulted

Because the Tribunal noted this defence but did not determine its effect, it could not simply follow its earlier decision in Manoj Kumar’s case.

The High Court expressed no view on whether the defence should be accepted

It remitted OA 84/2023 to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of that defence, leaving the Tribunal free to maintain, modify or otherwise alter its earlier decision after hearing both parties

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16 November 2026, and the Tribunal was requested to hear the matter expeditiously.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs