Hi, can'tcarryon, I would like to add to the chorus of encouragement. You are not looking at your situation properly from the inside, and really need to listen to the voices from outside, telling you what it looks like to outsiders.... outsiders like a tribunal, the company management, etc.
This man must supply proof, or there is no case. It doesn't matter what you can prove or can't; you could even sit and say nothing, and could still win.
He has undermined his own "proof", by signing off your time sheets (negligent? or a liar? Hmmm....). He has behaved belligerently (again, the behaviour of someone searching for a means to succeed, because he can't with his case alone). He called the police on you, rather than being more civilised - why? (could it be that he has no evidence, but wanted to make a big show? Duh...) His very behaviour speaks against him.
Meanwhile, you made a case against him which it seemed you could prove, because it was taken up.
Also, I hope it will help if I share something of my experience of jury duty. Jurors are not meant to talk about cases or evidence, but I will try to be vague and say that we did argue round and round and round this case with no forensic evidence, all very conscious that we would be sending one or two people to jail. In the end, we decided that one of the defendants, although he was clearly present at the crime, was not necessarily aware of what was being done. Now, we knew we could have been wrong, and in fact, he had a previous record for something very similar. But without evidence, we were NOT willing to convict him. We also thought the previous case could well have made him wary of repeating such a crime. Perhaps were swayed by human sympathy for the one we acquitted (he might have been guilty, after all; we were just interpreting), but it was more likely our sense of responsibility which made us unable to convict. Your jury would feel the same.... if it ever gets to court!
Your case is much more clear-cut, with a clear motive for him, versus a meh motive for you. The prosecution must prove; defence must just defend; whereas, as I said above, you had evidence against him, which is why you entered the tribunal process.
He must be scared, and is making it worse for himself, the more he shouts and accuses and does shit like gets you arrested.
I know it's hard to snap out of the paralysis of fear, but if you can get angry (and there is a lot of fuel here, for your anger!), your sense of paralysis should disappear and you should see more clearly what to do, and maybe even gain some appetite for the fight with this bastard. Let's see him get everything coming to him!