21 Aug 2001
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 93 (2001) DLT 563; 2002 (61) DRJ 583
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2001-0006DelhiJudgment 21 August 2001
Delhi Police Constable and others v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ of two Delhi Police constables dismissed from service in July 1993 without enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) on a gang-rape charge (FIR 289/93). After the Trial Magistrate discharged them in 1996 for want of prima facie evidence, they sought reinstatement invoking Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. The Court held a pre-trial discharge is not an acquittal and Rule 12 was inapplicable, sustaining the CAT dismissal of their plea. Caveat: the dismissal was upheld purely on this Rule 12 legal point; there is no merits finding on the rape charge itself. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 21 August 2001, the Delhi High Court (Coram: M. Khan, Sharda Aggarwal, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 2 police personnel, namely: Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0009
- Case reference
- 93 (2001) DLT 563; 2002 (61) DRJ 583
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: M. Khan, Sharda Aggarwal, JJ.), 21 August 2001
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “We accordingly hold that order of discharge in a criminal case does not amount to an order of acquittal.” (at para 8)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Delhi High Court judgment dated 21 August 2001 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“We accordingly hold that order of discharge in a criminal case does not amount to an order of acquittal.” (para 8)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.