CW-2002-0019DelhiJudgment 16 March 2002

Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.

The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 16 March 2002 dismissed the writ petition against the CAT order in OA No. 2430 of 1998 and left intact the removal of Delhi Armed Police constables and [name withheld] for gross negligence that allowed undertrial prisoner Mohd. Salim to escape from the Patiala House Courts Dakhila gate on 23 August 1996. The court held the escape-specific Rule 29 enquiry governed rather than a Rule 15 preliminary enquiry, that due procedure was followed with six prosecution and five defence witnesses examined, and that the admitted escape at the petitioner's searching/frisking post proved dereliction. It declined to interfere with the quantum of punishment, which had been considered at all levels. The removal from service therefore stood; the supervising Head Constable's increment stop was also left undisturbed. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 16 March 2002 in CWP No. 7007 of 2001, the Delhi High Court (Coram: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 3 police personnel, namely: Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard); Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard); Head Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard).

Register number
DL 00 CW 0010
Case reference
CWP No. 7007 of 2001
Court and date
Delhi High Court (Coram: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri, JJ.), 16 March 2002
Officer(s) at the material time
Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard); Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard); Head Constable, III Bn DAP, Delhi Police (Patiala House Courts Gaddi Guard)
Present service status
Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
Provisions invoked
Section 221 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 222 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“The fact that the under trial prisoner has escaped from the custody stood admitted and the fact that the petitioner and the other delinquent officers were do duty was also admitted.” (at para 26)
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.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated 16 March 2002 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“The fact that the under trial prisoner has escaped from the custody stood admitted and the fact that the petitioner and the other delinquent officers were do duty was also admitted.” (para 26)

Institutional response

1
16 Mar 2002

Order issued

Concluded
Delhi High Court External · Binding

The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: CWP No. 7007 of 2001
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.