Departmental enquiries may rely on custodial confessions and proceed independently of criminal discharge or trial evidence rules.

Evidentiary rules barring police confessions in criminal trials do not control departmental enquiries, where misconduct may be proved on a preponderance of probability and by legally sufficient evidence. A confession made by a police employee in custody could therefore be relied on in the domestic enquiry once duly proved through the identification memo and witness testimony, without a valid showing that it was forged, fabricated, or retracted. Discharge in the criminal case did not bar disciplinary action on the same facts, and Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 did not apply to invalidate the dismissal founded on proved departmental misconduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a confession made by a police employee while in police custody could be relied upon and proved in a departmental enquiry notwithstanding the evidentiary bar applicable to criminal trials; (ii) whether discharge in the criminal case and Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 rendered the dismissal unsustainable.

Issue (i): whether a confession made by a police employee while in police custody could be relied upon and proved in a departmental enquiry notwithstanding the evidentiary bar applicable to criminal trials.

Analysis: The evidentiary restrictions contained in the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure operate in criminal proceedings and do not govern domestic or departmental enquiries. In such proceedings, guilt is determined on the basis of preponderance of probability, and the strict rules of admissibility applicable to criminal trials do not apply. The confession was also found to have been duly proved through the identification memo and the testimony of the witness, and there was no convincing challenge that it was forged, fabricated, or retracted.

Conclusion: The confession was admissible for departmental purposes and had been proved; the finding against the respondent on this issue was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether discharge in the criminal case and Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 rendered the dismissal unsustainable.

Analysis: Discharge in a criminal case does not by itself prevent disciplinary action on the same facts, because the two proceedings operate on different standards of proof and different objects. Rule 12 was inapplicable as it concerns cases of trial and discharge/acquittal in the context contemplated by the rule, whereas the respondent's dismissal was founded on proved departmental misconduct. The departmental authorities, therefore, were not barred from imposing dismissal on the basis of the proved charge.

Conclusion: The dismissal was not invalidated by the criminal discharge or by Rule 12; the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The departmental punishment was restored and the respondent's challenge to the dismissal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules excluding confessions to police in criminal trials do not apply to departmental enquiries, where misconduct may be established on preponderance of probability and on legally sufficient evidence.

---