Preliminary Enquiry statements lack evidentiary value if witnesses resile during disciplinary proceedings without Rule 16(iii) compliance.

The respondent, a constable with the Delhi Police, was accused of engaging a Home Guard Constable to collect unauthorized payments from Blue Line buses at the Punjabi Bagh Bus Terminal

During the Preliminary Enquiry (PE), witnesses provided inculpatory statements against the respondent

However, during the formal departmental inquiry before the Inquiry Officer (IO), all material witnesses—including the driver, conductor, and the Home Guard—resiled from their statements and turned hostile

Despite this, the IO found the respondent guilty based solely on the PE statements

The respondent was penalized with a permanent forfeiture of three years’ approved service and a pay reduction

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) set aside the punishment on March 8, 2006, leading the Delhi Police to file this writ petition

The court applied Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which mandates that witnesses be examined directly in the presence of the accused unless their presence cannot be procured without undue delay or expense

This rule is analogous to Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The court heavily relied on the precedent of Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10, which establishes that PE statements cannot be relied upon if witnesses are available but do not support the prosecution's case during the formal inquiry

The court reasoned that under Rule 16(iii) of the DP (PA) Rules, the IO can only bring previous statements on record as substantive evidence if a specific finding is made that the witness's presence is difficult to procure

In this case, the witnesses were not only available but actually appeared before the IO and retracted their allegations

Furthermore, the court noted that there was no direct evidence or eye-witness testimony linking the respondent to the spot of the alleged collection

Since the material witnesses specifically denied the charges during the inquiry, the court determined that the previous PE statements possessed no evidentiary value

Consequently, the finding of guilt was deemed "perverse" as it rested on a total absence of admissible evidence

It ruled that the disciplinary authority erred by disregarding the hostile testimony in the formal inquiry in favor of retracted PE statements

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s judgment in its entirety and dismissed the writ petition, thereby confirming the setting aside of the respondent's punishment and restoration of consequential benefits