Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
The Delhi High Court Division Bench (S.B. Sinha, C.J. and A.K. Sikri, J.) on 31 July 2002 dismissed the writ petitions of three Delhi Police PCR personnel and left intact their dismissal from service for extorting 35 pounds from a British-passport holder near IGI Airport on the night of 29/30 December 1996. The court held departmental proceedings require only preponderance of probability, not criminal-trial proof, and that the unavailable complainant's statement could be taken on record under Rule 16(iii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1980. It held the petitioners' undisputed presence on PCR duty at the site corroborated the extortion charge and found no illegality in the Tribunal's order. The dismissals ordered on 2 December 1998, affirmed on appeal and by the CAT, therefore stood.
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 →By judgment dated 31 July 2002 in CWP Nos. 2537 and 2546 of 2001, the Delhi High Court (Coram: S.B. Sinha, A.K. Sikri, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 3 police personnel, namely: Head Constable, PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28), Delhi Police; Head Constable, PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28), Delhi Police; Constable, PCR Van DL-1A-0407 (Z-28), Delhi Police.
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 31 July 2002 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
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.
Holding not recorded separately.
“In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.” (para 33)
The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
(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.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.