19 Aug 2002
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: [2003(96)FLR621]
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2002-0028DelhiJudgment 19 August 2002
Delhi Police Constable vs Union of India and Ors.
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.
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 19 August 2002 in CWP No. 4775 of 2002, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Anil Dev Singh, Mukul Mudgal, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, E Block, Security Lines, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0014
- Case reference
- CWP No. 4775 of 2002 / [2003(96)FLR621]
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Anil Dev Singh, Mukul Mudgal, JJ.), 19 August 2002
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, E Block, Security Lines, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “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.” (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 19 August 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.
“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.” (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.