7 Mar 2006
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi); LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2006-0021DelhiJudgment 7 March 2006
Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police constable Om Pal Singh and sustained his removal from service for wilfully absenting himself from duty from 10 February 1999 without leave application or medical papers, ignoring absentee notices and a direction to undergo medical examination, against a background of 13 earlier absences for which he had been reprimanded. The Court held the ex-parte enquiry complied with Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, rejected the departmental-bias challenge, and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 16. It found no merit in the challenge to the removal penalty or the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of OA 2098/2001. 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 7 March 2006 in Writ petition (OA 2098/2001 lineage); 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court (Coram: Mukundakam Sharma, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Om Pal Singh (Constable).
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0016
- Case reference
- Writ petition (OA 2098/2001 lineage); 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi) / 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi); LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Mukundakam Sharma, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.), 7 March 2006
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Om Pal Singh (Constable)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “He did not cross-examine the witnesses, file any written statement or give his defense against allegations made against him. There is no allegation that procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 has not been followed.” (at para 36)
- 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 7 March 2006 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.
“He did not cross-examine the witnesses, file any written statement or give his defense against allegations made against him. There is no allegation that procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 has not been followed.” (para 36)
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.