Digital evidence in departmental enquiries requires credibility assessment to rule out tampering.

In August 2018, a complaint with a CD was allegedly received from Ajay Arora against traffic staff at TI/Kapashera Traffic Circle

The CD purportedly showed the Respondent (Anil Kumar) demanding and accepting money from Joginder

Although no official entry of the complaint was made, HC Ashok Kumar was tasked with investigating, making a copy of the CD

Despite the Enquiry Officer finding the charge against the Respondent not proved, primarily because the CD lacked a Section 65B Indian Evidence Act, 1872 certificate and its genuineness was questionable, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note

Subsequently, on July 27, 2021, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted a major penalty of forfeiture of two years of approved service on the Respondent, while SI Karan Singh received a minor punishment of Censure, and other officers visible in the video were exonerated

The Respondent's appeal was rejected on January 25, 2022

The Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 683/2022, allowed the Respondent's application, setting aside the disciplinary authority's order due to the questionable genuineness of the CD

The Petitioners (Commissioner of Police) challenged this order before the High Court of Delhi

Whether the Disciplinary Authority erred in inflicting penalty on the Respondent based primarily on an ungraded CD without a Section 65B Indian Evidence Act certificate, disregarding the Enquiry Officer's findings and the questionable genuineness of the digital evidence

Whether the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the penalty inflicted on the Respondent, warrants interference by the High Court

The court applied Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which pertains to the admissibility of electronic records and requires a certificate to authenticate the integrity of digital evidence

While acknowledging that technical rules of evidence are not strictly applicable in departmental enquiries and that the standard of proof is generally preponderance of probability, the court held that even in such proceedings, the credibility and genuineness of digital evidence, especially when forming the basis of the entire allegations, must be ascertained to rule out tampering

The court found that the Petitioners' case was essentially hinged on the CD, which purported to show the Respondent receiving money

However, the learned Tribunal had correctly found the CD's genuineness to be questionable

The original CD was not produced, no attempt was made to obtain a copy, and there was no DD entry for its receipt

Crucially, the alleged complainant, Ajay Arora, denied giving any such CD, and Joginder, from whom money was allegedly taken, denied conducting any sting and refused to participate in proceedings

The court noted the anomaly that while the Respondent, a constable not empowered to issue challans, received a major penalty, his superiors visible in the video were largely exonerated, which "belies logic"

Despite the lower standard of proof in departmental enquiries (preponderance of probability), the court emphasized that digital evidence must have its credibility ascertained to rule out tampering, particularly when it forms the "foundation of the case"

The court concluded that to inflict a penalty, "there must be some clear and convincing evidence," and reliance on a "dubious and questionable" CD is unsustainable

The court held that the penalty inflicted on the Respondent was unsustainable as it was based on dubious and questionable digital evidence (the CD), the genuineness and credibility of which could not be established after the alleged complainant and the person from whom money was taken denied their involvement

The Respondent was therefore entitled to all consequential benefits as previously directed by the Tribunal