Both writ petitions, W.P.(C) 12925/2006 (Bijender Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) and W.P.(C) 4506/2013 (Javed Khan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), arose from the same incident wherein the petitioners, then serving as Constables in Delhi Police, were accused of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification for releasing a truck loaded with country-made liquor seized near Sheila Cinema in 1997. Departmental proceedings were initiated under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and upon completion of the enquiry, both were dismissed from service, which punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners approached the High Court contending that the enquiry was based on “no evidence”, was vitiated for want of supply of documents, contained contradictions in witness depositions, and lacked approval under Rule 15(2) of the said Rules. Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority following due procedure, the petitioners were afforded full opportunity of defence, and the findings were supported by relevant evidence based on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. It reiterated that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining procedural fairness and legality, not re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings on facts. Observing that indulgence of police officials in corrupt practices gravely undermines public confidence and merits stringent disciplinary action, the Court upheld the penalty of dismissal as proportionate to the gravity of misconduct and found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities or of the Tribunal, thereby dismissing both writ petitions without costs.
Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 — Rule 15(2) — Preliminary enquiries — Cognizable offence disclosed — Approval for departmental enquiry or criminal prosecution — Rule requires prior approval of Additional Commissioner of Police regarding appropriate course of action — In this case, departmental enquiry was ordered after petitioner’s earlier termination was set aside on appeal, directing a departmental enquiry — Petitioners cannot challenge the decision to conduct the inquiry after having sought it on appeal. (Paras 45, 46, 47)
Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Scope of Judicial Review — High Court’s power under Article 226 is not an appellate forum — Review is limited to examining if enquiry was conducted by competent authority, if principles of natural justice were followed, and if conclusions are based on relevant evidence — Court is concerned with the decision-making process and fairness of procedure, not correctness of conclusions — Interference is permissible only if enquiry violates natural justice, statutory rules, or if findings are based on no evidence or are perverse (such that no reasonable person could reach them). (Para 40)
Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Standard of Proof — In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt —findings are sustainable if supported by some relevant evidence — Minor discrepancies in witness statements are not sufficient to discard the entire evidence, especially when the core allegations remain consistent. (Paras 42, 43, 34)
Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Evidence — “No Evidence” contention not considered valid when Enquiry Officer relied on multiple witnesses corroborating the sequence of events, not solely on one statement — Material placed on record provided an adequate basis for the conclusion. (Para 42)
Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Non-supply of documents — Allegation of non-supply of documents lacks merit when record shows all relevant materials were available, and petitioners had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine and present defence — No specific prejudice demonstrated to affect fairness of enquiry. (Para 44)
Service Law — Misconduct of Police Personnel — Gravity of offence — Demanding or accepting money by police officials is grave misconduct — Such conduct shakes public confidence and tarnishes the image of the police force — Dismissal is a justifiable penalty for corrupt activities, as retaining such officials is against public interest. (Para 49)
Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Punishment — Quantum of punishment — Court can only interfere if penalty is shockingly disproportionate or wholly arbitrary or based on no evidence — Dismissal penalty for corruption by police personnel is not disproportionate. (Para 49, 36)
Service Law — Departmental Proceedings — Contradictions in Evidence — Minor discrepancies in witness statements regarding arrest location or bribe recipient are not grounds to discard evidence in departmental proceedings decided on probability — Core allegations remaining consistent are sufficient. (Para 43)
Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 — Rule 8(a) — Requirement for finding of incorrigibility — Not a ground for interference when other grounds for dismissal are established. (Para 9)
Case Name : Bijender Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and Javed Khan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,, 10-11-2025