11 Apr 2002
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 100(2002)DLT385
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2002-0020DelhiJudgment 11 April 2002
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs Delhi Police Constable
The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 11 April 2002 allowed the Government's writ petition arising from CAT OA No. 1161/1996 and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, leaving intact the dismissal of Delhi Police constable for outraging the modesty of the survivor at her jhuggi and threatening her husband. The court held Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 bars fresh departmental punishment after a judicial acquittal but does not vitiate a dismissal already imposed on 15 January 1991 before the acquittal, and that a pending appeal does not keep punishment under animated suspension. It further held the criminal acquittal was only on benefit of doubt, falling within the exception in Rule 12(a). The dismissal therefore stood. 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 11 April 2002, the Delhi High Court (Coram: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0011
- Case reference
- 100(2002)DLT385
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri, JJ.), 11 April 2002
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and by an order dated 15th January 1991, a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him.” (at para 2)
- 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 11 April 2002 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.
“In the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and by an order dated 15th January 1991, a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him.” (para 2)
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.