Hostility of witnesses in departmental inquiries does not preclude findings based on prior statements and preponderance of probabilities.

The Petitioner, a Head Constable in the Delhi Police, was accused of illegally detaining two individuals, Chandan and Dinesh Sahoo, on April 18, 2020, under the pretext of vehicle theft investigation

Instead of following official protocol, the Petitioner allegedly took the individuals to a private location in his personal vehicle and extorted ₹42,000/- from them

A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the ACP/Narela, during which the victims provided statements detailing the extortion

Consequently, a departmental enquiry (DE) was initiated under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980

Although the material witnesses turned hostile during the DE, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved based on circumstantial evidence and prior statements

The Disciplinary Authority awarded a punishment of forfeiture of one-year approved service with permanent effect

After the Appellate Authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upheld this punishment, the Petitioner moved the High Court via a writ petition

1. Whether the finding of guilt in a departmental enquiry is sustainable when the material witnesses turn hostile during the proceedings

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can reappreciate evidence or interfere with the concurrent findings of disciplinary authorities in the absence of perversity

The court primarily relied on the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which restricts the court from acting as an appellate authority over departmental findings

It applied the principle that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is the "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt"

the testimony of a hostile witness does not ipso facto render their initial statements inadmissible or invalidate the enquiry, provided the Disciplinary Authority assesses credibility and circumstantial evidence reasonably

The Court reasoned that judicial review is limited to checking for perversity or patent illegality, not for reappreciating facts

It observed that despite turning hostile regarding the "exchange of money," the witnesses admitted during the DE that the Petitioner had taken them to a private dairy in his personal car for "verification" rather than taking them to the Police Station

The Court highlighted that the PCR call made by the victim's brother and the testimony of the ACP (who conducted the preliminary enquiry) remained unchallenged regarding the authenticity of the initial statements

The Court found the Petitioner's conduct—handling "doubtful persons" in a private capacity while on "duty rest"—to be a significant deviation from official duty

It concluded that the "preponderance of probabilities" strongly suggested misconduct, regardless of the witnesses' subsequent hostility

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal

The punishment of forfeiture of one-year approved service with permanent effect was maintained, as the standard of proof required for departmental proceedings was sufficiently met