{
 "record_id": "CW-2002-0028",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-1167",
 "alias_merged_ids": [],
 "display_title": "Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.",
 "display_title_redacted": "Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.",
 "state": "Delhi",
 "district": null,
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": "New Delhi",
 "police_station_or_unit": "E Block, Security Lines",
 "court": "Delhi High Court",
 "court_as_verified": "Delhi High Court",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.",
 "case_number": "CWP No. 4775 of 2002",
 "citation": "[2003(96)FLR621]",
 "judges": [
  "Anil Dev Singh",
  "Mukul Mudgal"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "2002-08-19",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 2002,
 "incident_date": "1993-01-01",
 "incident_year": 1993,
 "category": "Other",
 "admin_category": "corruption",
 "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act",
 "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act",
 "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act",
 "protest_override_heuristic": false,
 "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld",
 "sections": [
  "IPC 420"
 ],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": "Constable",
   "unit": "E Block, Security Lines, Delhi Police",
   "role": "held_liable",
   "publish_grade": "unnamed",
   "gate_reasons": [
    "ledger:no_row",
    "key2:no_row"
   ],
   "ledger_role": null,
   "key2": null,
   "key2_agy": null,
   "key2_claude": null,
   "key2_union": null,
   "key2_gemapi": null,
   "key2_openrouter": null,
   "key2_gpt56": null,
   "grok": null,
   "jev_risk": null,
   "jev_p_culpable": null,
   "key2_gpt": null,
   "later_outcome": null,
   "name_public": null,
   "display": "Constable, E Block, Security Lines, Delhi Police"
  }
 ],
 "officer_count": 1,
 "victims": [
  {
   "age": null,
   "gender": null,
   "name": null,
   "descriptor": "New Delhi resident"
  },
  {
   "age": null,
   "gender": null,
   "name": null,
   "descriptor": "New Delhi resident"
  }
 ],
 "victims_redacted": null,
 "anonymised": false,
 "victim_count": 2,
 "sentence_type": "dismissal",
 "sentence_max_years": null,
 "compensation_inr": null,
 "force": "state_police",
 "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/804850/",
 "secondary_sources": [
  "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703941/ex-constable-vinod-kumar-vs-secretary-ministry"
 ],
 "summary": "The Delhi High Court on 19 August 2002 dismissed the writ petition of ex-constable [name withheld] against the CAT order in OA No. 995/2002 and left intact his dismissal from Delhi Police for taking illegal gratification in 1993-1994: Rs 20,000 and Rs 5,000 for securing an MCD teacher appointment for [name withheld], and Rs 20,000 from a New Delhi resident for getting his son appointed a constable. The court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities' view could not be faulted and that a policeman indulging in lawlessness shakes public faith in government machinery. It held the later criminal acquittal in FIR No. 99/96 (Section 420 IPC, PS Tilak Marg) was on compromise, not merits, so it did not entitle him to reversal of the departmental punishment, and Rule 12 was inapplicable where punishment preceded the acquittal. The dismissal ordered on 20 May 1999 therefore stood. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.",
 "summary_verified": "The Delhi High Court on 19 August 2002 dismissed the writ petition of ex-constable [name withheld] against the CAT order in OA No. 995/2002 and left intact his dismissal from Delhi Police for taking illegal gratification in 1993-1994: Rs 20,000 and Rs 5,000 for securing an MCD teacher appointment for [name withheld], and Rs 20,000 from a New Delhi resident for getting his son appointed a constable. The court held the disciplinary and appellate authorities' view could not be faulted and that a policeman indulging in lawlessness shakes public faith in government machinery. It held the later criminal acquittal in FIR No. 99/96 (Section 420 IPC, PS Tilak Marg) was on compromise, not merits, so it did not entitle him to reversal of the departmental punishment, and Rule 12 was inapplicable where punishment preceded the acquittal. The dismissal ordered on 20 May 1999 therefore stood.",
 "court_quote": "After recording the evidence the Enquiry Officer held the charges to be proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, on May 20, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service.",
 "court_quote_para": "2",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "HC dismissed writ; dismissal for taking job-related bribes stands despite compromise acquittal.",
 "verification_status": "V2",
 "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported",
 "tier_badge": "Externally reported",
 "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded",
 "tier_history": [
  "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded"
 ],
 "allegations": [
  {
   "category": "Other",
   "primary": true,
   "position": "Material fact supported",
   "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.",
   "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation"
  }
 ],
 "institutional_response": [
  {
   "date": "2002-08-19",
   "action_type": "Order issued",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Delhi High Court",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.",
   "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only",
   "source": "[2003(96)FLR621]",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  }
 ],
 "later_proceedings": [],
 "final_outcome_url": null,
 "followup_history": [
  {
   "date": "2026-09-19",
   "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass",
   "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)",
   "result": "holds",
   "corrections_applied": []
  }
 ],
 "followup_status": "checked",
 "last_checked": "2026-09-19",
 "link_checked_per_url": [
  {
   "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/804850/",
   "link_checked": null
  },
  {
   "url": "https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703941/ex-constable-vinod-kumar-vs-secretary-ministry",
   "link_checked": null
  }
 ],
 "source_assessment": {
  "established": null,
  "basis": null
 },
 "v3_basis": null,
 "publication_basis": null,
 "reviews": [],
 "retracted": {
  "is_retracted": false
 },
 "fidelity_checked": true,
 "verified_by": [
  "chunk-106"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "GAP3-38-005",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}