Dismissed¶¶55

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Anil Kumar

Delhi HC9 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/9589/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC dismisses Police Commissioner's W.P.(C) 9589/2024 against CAT order (dt. 15.12.2023, O.A. 683/2022) upholding exoneration of Constable Anil Kumar penalised with forfeiture of two years' approved service over a sting CD at Kapashera Traffic Circle; CD lacked Section 65B certificate, original never produced, complainants Ajay Arora and Joginder disowned the recording; penalty resting on questionable digital evidence held unsustainable; preponderance of probability still requires clear and convincing evidence.

What did the court decide?

None to the Petitioners: the writ petition assailing the Tribunal's 15.12.2023 order (setting aside the penalty on the Respondent) was dismissed and that order stands undisturbed; the pending application was disposed of. ¶¶55

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether there is sufficient evidence on record to inflict penalty on the Respondent for purportedly demanding and accepting money at the Kapashera Traffic Circle in lieu of enabling a number of vehicles to ply on the said route.

¶¶35

Court's answer

The findings of the learned Tribunal doubting the genuineness of the CD and accompanying transcript are not perverse: the original CD was never produced in the enquiry, no copy was sought, no DD entry was made of receipt of the complaint and CD, the alleged complainant Ajay Arora denied ever giving any CD, there is no clarity as to who prepared the CD, and Joginder, the person from whom the Respondent allegedly took money, never joined the departmental proceedings or vigilance enquiry and denied conducting any sting.

¶¶42

Ratio / Principle

Although technical rules of evidence (including the Section 65B certificate requirement) are not applicable in departmental enquiries, reliance on digital evidence requires that its credibility be ascertained in some manner so as to rule out tampering, especially when such evidence forms the basis of the entire allegations.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

Even to meet the lower threshold of preponderance of probability in a departmental enquiry, there must be some clear and convincing evidence to implicate the employee; penalty based on questionable digital evidence is unsustainable, and once the CD is adjudged dubious, no benefit flows from DW3's assertions of general corruption at the Circle.ratio¶¶55
It belies logic that the Respondent, who was only a Constable admittedly not even empowered to challan, could indulge in such corrupt practices in the presence of other staff members including his superiors (who were exonerated, with only SI Karan Singh censured) without their complicity, yet the Petitioners chose to pursue the matter only against the Respondent.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (oral judgment authored by Amit Mahajan, J., bench including Anil Kshetarpal, J.) dismissed the writ petition filed by the Commissioner of Police and Ors. challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 15.12.2023 in O.A. No. 683/2022, which had set aside the 27.07.2021 major penalty of permanent forfeiture of two years of approved service (with proportionate pay reduction) imposed on Respondent Anil Kumar, a Constable, for allegedly demanding and accepting money seen on a sting CD at Kapashera Traffic Circle. Held: the Tribunal's findings questioning the genuineness of the CD were not perverse — the original CD was never produced, no DD entry recorded the complaint, alleged complainant Ajay Arora denied giving any CD, and Joginder, the alleged payer, denied conducting any sting and never joined the enquiries. Though technical evidentiary rules (Section 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872) do not govern departmental proceedings, digital evidence relied upon therein must have its credibility ascertained to rule out tampering; even the preponderance-of-probability standard demands clear and convincing evidence, making penalty on questionable digital evidence unsustainable. Petition dismissed; pending application disposed of.

¶1

$~3

¶2

I� THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT �EW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 09.03.2026

¶4

W.P.(C) 9589/2024 & CM APPL. 39366/2024

¶5

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC

¶6

& SI Abdul Barkat Pairvi Officer

versus

ANIL KUMAR

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Vikas Arora & Ms. Radhika Arora, Advs.

¶11

CORAM: HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE A�IL KSHETARPAL HO�'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJA� J U D G M E � T (ORAL)

¶12

AMIT MAHAJA�, J.

¶13

Through the present writ petition, the Petitioners have assailed the correctness of order dated 15.12.2023 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’), passed in O.A. No. 683/2022. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the Respondent and the order passed by disciplinary authority inflicting penalty on Respondent was set aside.

¶14

Briefly stated, in August, 2018, a complaint along with a CD was allegedly received from one Ajay Arora against traffic staff at the office of TI/Kapashera Traffic Circle. Allegedly, the CD revealed that the Respondent was demanding and accepting money from one public person, namely, Joginder. Four other staff members deployed at the Circle were also allegedly visible in the video, and were perceived to be

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶19

part of the corrupt activities of the Respondent in taking money in lieu of plying a number of vehicles on the route. Pursuant to the same, although no official entry of the said complaint was made, HC Ashok Kumar was tasked with looking into the same. The said officer made a copy of the CD and attached the same with the complaint. In the vigilance proceedings, it was found that the allegations could not be substantiated in the absence of the person who conducted the sting and prepared the CD. Despite the same, on 29.12.2020, a joint departmental enquiry was initiated against the Respondent, SI Karan Singh and three other officers for gross misconduct unbecoming of police officers as well as dereliction of duty.

¶20

After completion of all codal formalities, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that the charge against all officers, including, the Respondent, was not proved. It was noted that the CD was not accompanied with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which made the same unreliable. After perusing the entire file, the Disciplinary Authority served a disagreement note dated 13.07.2021 wherein it was noted that the Enquiry Officer had failed to appreciate the material on record and erroneously discarded the CD even though the standard of proof in departmental enquiry is that of preponderance of probability. Despite the Respondent’s detailed reply against the same, by way of order dated 27.07.2021, the Disciplinary Authority ultimately inflicted a major penalty of forfeiture of two years of approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay. Further, SI Karan Singh was awarded the punishment of Censure for his lack of supervision. The Respondent’s appeal against the punishment was

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55

¶23

Page 2 of 7

¶24

W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶25

rejected by the Appellate Authority on 25.01.2022.

¶26

Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent had filed O.A. No. 683/2022, which was allowed by way of the impugned order. The Respondent was found to be entitled to all consequential benefits and the competent authority was directed to pass necessary orders in this regard. It was noted that the very foundation of the case had come into question due to the genuineness of the CD being questionable.

¶27

Before this Court, it is argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the Disciplinary Authority had weighed the entire material on record before inflicting the penalty on the Respondent. It is submitted that the Respondent was seen demanding and taking money on video to allow vehicles to ply on the concerned route, and he has been erroneously exonerated on account of the CD not being accompanied with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is emphasised that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probability, and even DW 3 (Inspector Jai Kumar Bhardwaj) had accepted during vigilance enquiry that staff of Kapshera Circle had become uncontrolled due to illegal activities. It is submitted that the circumstances establish a clear case against the Respondent.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent has argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the Respondent cannot be penalised on the basis of a dubious CD. He submitted that in his capacity as a constable, the Respondent could not even have issued challans to the plying vehicles. He further pointed out that apart from SI Karan, the rest of the officers apparently found visible

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55

¶31

Page 3 of 7

¶32

W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶33

in the video have been exonerated.

¶34

Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is imperative to first take note of the conduct of the Petitioners. On 23.07.2025, the Predecessor Bench had noted that the Petitioners had been taking repeated adjournments. Although no further adjournment has been sought since then, despite granting repeated opportunities to the Petitioners, the record of the departmental proceedings has still not been placed on record. In such circumstances, this Court does not consider it appropriate to adjourn the matter any further.

¶35

The short issue before this Court is whether there is sufficient evidence on record to inflict penalty on the Respondent for purportedly demanding and accepting money at the Kapashera Traffic Circle in lieu of enabling a number of vehicles to ply on the said route.

¶36

Though seven prosecution witnesses were examined in the departmental enquiry, as also noted by the learned Tribunal, the case of the Petitioners is essentially hinged on the CD, which is said to contain the video which evidences the Respondent allegedly receiving money. Reference is also made to the statement of DW3, who had accepted in vigilance proceedings that the staff at Kapashera Circle is indulged in rampant illegal activities. It is argued that the said circumstances clearly make out a case against the Respondent.

¶37

At the outset, it is surprising to note that although the Petitioners have maintained throughout that the Respondent as well as his counterparts and immediate superiors are visible in the video, peculiarly, major penalty was only inflicted on the Respondent, and even SI Karan was only censured due to his alleged lack of proper supervision over his

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55 W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

staff. Rest of the officers, including one superior of the Respondent, have been exonerated despite their presence at the spot where the Respondent was allegedly demanding and accepting bribe. It belies logic that the Respondent, who was only a Constable and admittedly not even empowered to challan, would be able to indulge in such corrupt practices in presence of other staff members, including his superiors, without their complicity in the same. Despite the same, the Petitioners have only chosen to pursue the matter against the Respondent.

¶42

Be that as it may, insofar as the genuineness of the CD and the accompanying transcript is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are not perverse. As rightly appreciated by the learned Tribunal, the original CD was not produced during enquiry. No attempt was made to obtain a copy of the original CD either, and further, no DD entry was made in relation to receipt of the complaint as well as CD from Mr. Ajay Arora. Although he was technically the original complainant in the case and he had given the CD, Mr. Ajay Arora was not even listed as a witness, and rather, it is apparent from vigilance proceedings that he had denied that he had given any such CD to the Traffic Circle. There is no clarity whatsoever as to who prepared the CD. The foundation of the case is further rendered brittle as the person from whom the Respondent had allegedly taken money–Joginder, had also never joined the departmental proceedings as well as the vigilance enquiry, and he had clearly denied conducting any sting.

¶43

In this respect, it is also important to take note of the findings of the vigilance enquiry report in this regard. The same are as under:

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55 W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶46

Page 5 of 7

¶47

“ Complainant HC Ashok Kumar was asked to produce the person who provided him the sting CD. He told his name as Joginder Singh (xxxxxxxxxxx) He was called in front of the complainant and was also asked to join the vigilance enquiry. Joginder denied that he had never conducted any sting and also told that he has already told this fact to the police. Moreover, the alleged stinger Joginder never joined the vigilance enquiry on repeated communication on his mobile phone and clearly told that he has no complaint against any police officer. Another person namely Ajay Arora (xxxxxxxxxxx), who allegedly given the sting CD in the circle as told by HC Ashok, was also contacted, who told that he had never given any CD to the traffic circle Kapashera or anywhere else. Both were asked to join the enquiry, but they denied by taking the plea that they are not connected with the recording, hence unable to join the enquiry. Complainant HC Ashok Kumar never produced them before me for the purpose of vigilance enquiry on repeated opportunities. In the absence of the person who conducted the sting and prepared the CD, the allegations of the complainant could not be substantiated. ”

¶48

(emphasis supplied and contact numbers redacted)

¶49

Although it is well-settled that the technical rules of evidence are not applicable in a departmental enquiry, no employee can be implicated without any deference to the genuineness of the material sought to be relied upon. Departmental proceedings being disjunct from the staunch rules of evidence encompassed in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not signify that the CD is to be accepted even when there is no clarity as to who recorded the video. A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is merely a means to authenticate the integrity of digital evidence. Even if the same is not insisted upon in departmental proceedings, to rely upon digital evidence, it was necessary that the credibility of the evidence is ascertained in some manner to rule out tampering, especially when such evidence forms the basis of the entire allegations.

¶50

Even to meet the lower threshold of preponderance of probability

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55

¶53

Page 6 of 7

¶54

W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶55

in departmental enquiry, there must be some clear and convincing evidence to implicate the employee. Penalty based on questionable digital evidence is unsustainable. When the CD itself has been rightly found to be dubious and questionable, no benefit can be derived from any assertion of general corruption at the concerned Traffic Circle by DW3. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 16. The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶56

AMIT MAHAJA�, J

¶57

A�IL KSHETARPAL, J

¶58

MARCH 9, 2026 “SK”

¶59

Signature Not Verified

¶60

Signed By:DEEPANSHU Signing Date:16.03.2026 18:10:55 W.P.(C) 9589/2024

¶61

Page 7 of 7

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Anil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitaram Aggarwal Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Tripathi & Ors. Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge Headquarters Tis Hazari District Courts Delhi

Nitin Sarna Vs Department of Transport

Vikas Mishra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Tejinder Pal Singh Bhinder Vs Chief Controller of Accounts & Ors.

Kamal Garg Director of Breek Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Dr. Kumud Bharti Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Suman Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sumesh Kumar Dua Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi &Ors. Vs Chandi Ram Rangi

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Shri Ramesh Chander

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ankur Sarkar and Ors. Vs Nikhil Kumar, Ias, Chief Secretary (Health)

Mahesh Kumar & Ors. Vs Govt. Ofnct of Delhi & Ors.