Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijay Bahadur vs Comm. Of Police on 4 November, 2025
1
OA No. 3586/2019
Item No. 37 (C-2)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3586/2019
This the 04th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
1. Vijay Bahadur
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
R/o B-5/38, Sector-15, Rohini,
Delhi - 110089
Aged about 48 years
(Group 'C')
(Head Constable in Delhi Police)
2. Devender Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o Qtr. No. 240, Police Colony
Ahata Kedra, Sadar Bazar, Delhi
Aged about 49 years
(Group 'C')
(Head Constable in Delhi Police)
3. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh
R/o H.No. V-352, Gali No. 15A,
Vijay Park, Mojpur, Delhi - 53
Aged about 53 years
(Group 'C')
(Constable in Delhi Police)
4. Surender Singh
S/o Sh. Surat Singh
R/o Vill-Balawas, PO-Dharan,
Distt. Rewari, Haryana-123412
Aged about 42 years
(Group 'C')
(Constable in Delhi Police)
5. Kaleem Beg
S/o Saleem Beg
R/o Mohall-Mugalpura, Amanat
Wali Gali, Baghpal, U.P. - 250609
Aged about 43 years
(Group 'C')
(Constable in Delhi Police)
6. Naresh Kumar
S/o Sh. Baru Singh
R/o Qtr. No. 99, Police Colony,
2
OA No. 3586/2019
Item No. 37 (C-2)
Shakarpur, New Delhi-92
Aged about 48 years
(Group 'C')
(Constable in Delhi Police)
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Additional Commissioner of Police (Armed Police)
Room No 23, First Floor,
Admn. Block, New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp, New Delhi-09
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Geetanjali Sharma)
3
OA No. 3586/2019
Item No. 37 (C-2)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) In the present Original Application, the applicants six in numbers, the first and the second applicants are Head Constables and the remaining applicants are Constables under the respondents have challenged order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure A-2) by which a major penalty of forfeiture of four years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay has been inflicted upon them and the period of suspension starting from 15.02.2008 has been declared as not spent on duty. Under challenge is also the appellate order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure A-1) vide which the Appellate Authority has rejected the statutory appeal of the applicants. The applicants have prayed for the following relief(s) in the present Original Application:-
"a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders viz. the appellate authority's order dated 23/09/2019 (Annexure A/1), the penalty order dated 12/02/2019 ( Annexure A/2) and the finding report (Annexure A/3).
b) Accord all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits and treating the suspension period as spent on duty for all intents and purposes. C) Award costs of the proceedings; and
d) Pass any order/relief/directions) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants."4 OA No. 3586/2019
Item No. 37 (C-2)
2. The claim of the applicants has been disputed and contested by the respondents in the counter reply filed by them and the applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. The undisputed facts in the present Original Application are that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicants along with a few others for the same allegations as in FIR No. 33 dated 14.02.2008 registered u/s 384/385/389/342/120B IPC with P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police. In the trial before the learned Court of Competent Jurisdiction in the said case FIR, the applicants stood acquitted vide order/judgment dated 07.11.2017. The factum of their acquittal vide the said order/judgment of the learned Trial Court was brought to the notice of the respondents, however, the respondents passed the impugned orders of penalty on the ground that in the trial, main witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, it seemed to the respondents that the main witnesses in the case have been won over by the applicants/delinquents. 5 OA No. 3586/2019 Item No. 37 (C-2)
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as, there is neither a finding of the learned Trial Court in its order/judgment dated 07.11.2017 that witnesses have been won over and/or any reason has been given by the respondents while passing the impugned order as to how they have come to conclusion that the witnesses have been won over by the applicants/delinquents during trial of the said case FIR.
6. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also the judgment of the larger Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v/s Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the order/judgment dated 09.09.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 22584/2005 titled Commissioner of Police, Delhi v/s H.C. Laxmi Chand and order/judgment dated 06.02.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 15272/2023 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v/s Vishambar Dayal.
6OA No. 3586/2019 Item No. 37 (C-2)
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicants by referring to the assertions made by the respondents in their counter reply. She has particularly referred to para (d) on internal page nos. 6 & 7 of the counter reply, wherein it is asserted that the location attached with the charge sheet to location of the mobile phone nos. of the applicants in Gurgaon, Cannaught Place, etc., i.e., identical to the location of mobile phone numbers of Dr. Upender SI P.C. Yadav (PW9) has clearly deposed that the team lifted Hemraj from Gurudwara near AIIMS. In the departmental inquiry, further evidence brought on record through prosecution witnesses examine during departmental inquiry, disclosure statements of the applicants recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has further proved the allegations leveled against the applicants.
8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties. In the order/judgment dated 07.11.2017, the learned Trial Court has held in para 42 placed at page no. 159 reads as under:-
"42. In the result, I find that prosecution has failed to proved its case against the accused persons and therefore accused persons namely Ravinder Kumar Singh, Rakesh, Naresh Kumar, Vijay Bahadur, Surender Rathi, Kalim Beg, Devender Kumar Malik and Rameshwar Khatri are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC, 384/342 IPC r/w. section 120-B IPC and under section 201 IPC for which they were charged."7 OA No. 3586/2019
Item No. 37 (C-2)
9. In para 41 of such judgment, the learned Trial Court has further held that, so far as the offence u/s 201 IPC is concerned, nothing has come on record in the testimony of any witness that accused Rakesh (applicant no. 3 here in the OA) had destroyed the mobile phone to screen himself and other accused persons from legal punishment.
10. In Para 42 of the judgment dated 07.11.2017, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the applicants from the charges leveled against them in the aforesaid case FIR.
11. Thus, we do not find that learned Trial Court has given a finding regarding prosecution witnesses having been won over by the accused persons/delinquents/applicants herein. While passing the impugned disciplinary order and while considering the factum of acquittal of the applicants in the said case FIR and provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules, the disciplinary authority has recorded "pleas considered and it seems that main witnesses in this case have been won over by delinquents resulting in acquittal of the delinquents". It is further evident from the impugned disciplinary order that the finding that the prosecution witnesses have been won over is only based on the finding of the disciplinary authority that the main witnesses have turned hostile in the learned Trial Court resulting in their acquittal. Thus, there is nothing recorded by the learned Trial Court and/or by the 8 OA No. 3586/2019 Item No. 37 (C-2) disciplinary/appellate authority to hold that the prosecution witnesses have been won over by the accused persons/applicants herein in the criminal trial except the finding of the respondents herein that the main witnesses have turned hostile in the aforesaid criminal trial.
12. Now, the issue arises as to whether simply in view of there without being any finding of the prosecution witnesses having been won over either by the learned Trial Court and/or by the disciplinary and/or appellate authority, the penalty imposed in the departmental inquiry is sustainable in law and/or in the light of Rule 12 of the Rules. This issue is no more res integra in view of the pronouncement of the law by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of H.C. Laxmi Chand (supra). The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"36. The next plea raised on behalf of the petitioner for reopening the departmental proceedings against the respondent was on the ground that the two witnesses who had turned hostile were won over by the respondent. There is no presumption in law that if a witness has turned hostile, he/she has been won over by the accused. In W.P.C.623/2009, titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others v. Jag Saran decided on 25th May, 2005, it was held that the accused cannot be saddled with the liability of the prosecution witness turning hostile, nor it can be assumed that the accused won over the said witness unless there are cogent facts and circumstances on the basis of which such inferences can be drawn. In iManu/DE/2455/2009, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. ASI Karan Singh, the accused was acquitted on account of lack of evidence in support of charges of rape against him as all the witnesses including the prosecutrix had not supported the prosecution case. The Disciplinary Authority, however, invoking the Rule 12
(b) of the Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 initiated the 9 OA No. 3586/2019 Item No. 37 (C-2) departmental proceeding on the premise that the witnesses had been won over by the accused. The High Court had held that there was no finding recorded by the criminal Court that the witnesses who had turned hostile had been won over by the accused nor was there any material before the Disciplinary Authority to come to the conclusion that the witnesses had been won over by the accused so as to invoke Rule 12 (b) of the Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 and in the circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings against the accused were quashed. In Khurshid Ahmad (Supra) the prosecutrix had turned hostile and refused to identify the charged officer and the other persons, who had allegedly sexually assaulted her. The prosecutrix who had turned hostile was cross examined by public prosecutor. The Court had held that normally the witnesses which are won over are given up by the prosecution and not produced in the Court; and a witness who is produced in the Court but does not support the case of the prosecution, is termed as a „hostile witness. The law permits such witness to be asked questions by the party producing him which are generally put by the opposing party. The evidence of a witness who has turned hostile cannot be discarded in its entirety merely on the ground that the witness turned hostile. The evidence of a hostile witness can still be relied upon, if otherwise found trustworthy. Therefore, a witness who turns hostile cannot be termed as a witness who has been won over. It was further held that such a witness is a witness who suppresses the truth and to elicit the truth, an opportunity is given to the opposing party to address questions in the nature of cross examination.
Therefore, merely because a witness has turned hostile it does not lead to an inference that he had been won over by the opposing party unless there is finding to that effect by the competent Court or some other material to establish that fact. The order of the petitioners in the circumstances that the witnesses who had turned hostile had been won over cannot be sustained.
37. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or un-sustainability in the order of the Tribunal dated 25.5.2005 setting aside the order dated 17th May, 2001 of the petitioners so as to interfere with the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed. All the pending applications are also disposed of. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs."
13. The issue is further answered by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in latest judgment in the case of 10 OA No. 3586/2019 Item No. 37 (C-2) Vishambar Dayal (supra), paras 17 to 19 of which read as under:-
"17. We have, in a recent decision in GNGTD v. Satyapal Singh Yadav, noted that there is a difference between a prosecution witness being declared hostile and a prosecution witness being won over. Winning over of a prosecution witness is a positive act on the part of the accused. It can be engineered in a variety of ways, by inducement, by threat and the like. The mere fact that a prosecution witness may not, during trial, have adhered to the statement earlier given by him does not, ipso facto, indicate that he had necessarily been won over by the accused. It may equally be true that the prosecution witness's earlier statement was not correct and that he decided later to tell the truth.
18. We may, for ready reference, reproduce the following paragraphs from our decision in Satyapal Singh Yadav:
"13. Clause (b) of Rule 12 of the DPPAR applies only where the acquittal of the police officer concerned, in criminal proceedings, is because the witnesses against him have been won over. A hostile witness is defined, in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, thus: "Hostile witness. The witness who makes statements adverse to the party calling and examining him, and who may, with the permission of the Court, be cross- examined by that party. A witness who, when giving evidence, conducts himself in a manner hostile to the party calling him, such that the party calling him may, by leave of the presiding judge, cross-examine him as if he were a witness for the other side. A witness is not hostile merely because he gives evidence unfavourably to the party calling him."
14. A witness may turn hostile for a variety of reasons, and it cannot be presumed that hostility of the witness is, in every case, because he has been won over by the opposite party. Winning over of a witness is a positive act committed by the party who has won over the witness. In Shankar V. State of UP, the Supreme Court held that the accused, in that case, had won over the witnesses, in the sense that the witnesses were not prepared to give evidence in the case for fear of their lives or otherwise. It is only, therefore, where the witness is unprepared to tender evidence or to support the case of the party who summons him into the witness box because of some overt or covert act committed by the opposite party, by threat, inducement or the like that the witness can be said to have been won over.
15. Witnesses may, turn hostile because they have been won over by the accused, or for any other reason. Clause (b) of Rule 12 of the DPPAR would apply where 11 OA No. 3586/2019 Item No. 37 (C-2) the witnesses turn hostile because they have been won over by the accused charged officer. It is not sufficient, therefore, for the Court, or the DCP, to hold, or opine, that the acquittal of the officer was because the witnesses turned hostile. The Court, or the DCP, must go a step further and hold, additionally, that the hostility of the witnesses was because the officer had won them over.
16. This crucial latter requirement is not satisfied in the present case, either in the judgment of the learned MM or in the punishment order issued by the DCP.
17. It may not be necessary, for the purposes of the limited scope of this decision, to delve in detail into the degree of material which is required to be present in order for an inference, that a witness has been won over by the opposite party, to be drawn. What is clear in law, however, is that clause (b) of Rule 12 of the DPPAR requires a observation or a finding by the DCP, or the criminal court, that the acquittal of the charged police officer in the criminal proceeding was because he had won over the witness. A finding, or at least an observation, of such a positive misdemeanour having been committed by the police official, must figure in the opinion of the DCP.
18. A mere reference to witnesses having turned hostile does not, therefore, ipso facto or ipso jure lead to an inexorable inference that the witnesses had necessarily been won over by the charged police officer.
19. There is no observation or finding, either by the learned MM or by the learned DCP, or by the learned Joint CP in the order dated 3 February 2017, that the respondent had won over the prosecution witnesses."
14. In the light of the aforesaid, the present OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with the following orders:-
(i) The impugned order dated 23.09.2019 is set aside.
(ii) The applicant shall be entitled for consequential benefits including seniority, fixation of pay, arrears thereof, etc., in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.12 OA No. 3586/2019
Item No. 37 (C-2)
(iii) The applicant shall also be entitled to be treated as on duty during the relevant period of suspension.
(iv) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15 However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/aks/