Findings Based on Unproven Evidence and Unreliable Witness Testimony Vitiate Departmental Inquiry and Dismissal Orders

The applicant, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, was dismissed from service following a joint departmental inquiry (DE) initiated on January 16, 2021.

The allegations involved an incident on December 30, 2020, where the applicant and a co-delinquent (ASI Manoj Kumar), while deployed at the Singhu Border during the farmers' agitation, allegedly crossed into Haryana to consume alcohol and engaged in a scuffle with protestors.

The Inquiry Officer (IO) found the charges "proved" based on a statement purportedly made by the applicant to an ACP and the testimony of PW-9 (SI Sachin).

The Disciplinary Authority ordered dismissal on March 21, 2022, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on September 26, 2022.

The applicant challenged these orders, noting that the co-delinquent, ASI Manoj Kumar, had already been exonerated in a parallel proceeding following a Tribunal order in OA No. 3194/2022.

1. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on extraneous material and inadmissible evidence, specifically an unproven statement to an ACP.

2. Whether the disciplinary action was sustainable given that the co-delinquent in the same joint inquiry had been exonerated on identical evidentiary grounds.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It relied on the principles of judicial review established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which mandates that findings in a disciplinary inquiry must be based on "some evidence" and cannot be perverse or based on no evidence.

The court applied the standard from Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, requiring independent reasons for orders involving civil consequences.

The court referred to Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which defines the limits of a Tribunal’s interference in departmental inquiries to cases where irrelevant considerations influenced the outcome or where findings are arbitrary.

The Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer’s report was fundamentally flawed because it relied heavily on a "confessional" statement allegedly made to an ACP who was never produced as a witness to prove said statement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s defense—that he was abducted and assaulted by protestors who forcefully poured alcohol into his mouth—was supported by a medical report confirming physical assault, yet this was ignored by the IO.

The Tribunal observed that the testimony of the key witness, PW-9 (SI Sachin), had already been discredited in the co-delinquent’s case as "no evidence," as the witness admitted he did not visit the scene or record statements from any eyewitnesses.

Since the respondents had already exonerated the co-delinquent based on the same vitiated evidence, the Tribunal held that maintaining the punishment against the applicant was untenable.

The court held that the inquiry report was vitiated by a lack of substantive evidence and inconsistency with the treatment of the co-delinquent.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits, including pay, seniority, and promotion, commensurate with those granted to the co-delinquent, ASI Manoj Kumar, within six weeks.

Motion for a fresh inquiry was denied to put the matter to "quietus".