# Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0021)

## 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.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/308440/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0021)

**Record:** CW-2006-0021 (compiler id CWC-0789); case GAP2-18-006
**Title:** Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Mukundakam Sharma; Sanjiv Khanna
**Case number / citation:** Writ petition (OA 2098/2001 lineage); 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi) / 2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi); LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214
**Judgment:** 2006-03-07 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1999-02-10 (1999)
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 r.16
**Officers (gated display forms):** Om Pal Singh (Constable) (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

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.

> 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.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/308440/); [the-laws.com](https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=106002994000&title=om-pal-singh-vs-unionof-india)
**Verification:** V2 · Externally reported
**Review:** Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded
**admin category:** misconduct
**admin subcategory:** other
**allegations:** {'category': 'Other', 'primary': True, 'position': 'Material fact supported', 'position_explainer': 'Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.', 'official_finding_relation': 'supports allegation'}
**anonymised:** False
**court quote para:** 36
**display title redacted:** Om Pal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.
**followup history:** {'date': '2026-09-19', 'scope': 'Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass', 'method': 'skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)', 'result': 'holds', 'corrections_applied': \[\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-03-07', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Delhi High Court', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '2007(1) SLJ 502 (Delhi); LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/308440/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.the-laws.com/encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=106002994000&title=om-pal-singh-vs-unionof-india', 'link_checked': None}
**retracted:** {"is_retracted": false}
**service:** police
**source assessment:** {"established": null, "basis": null}
**status:** current
**subcategory display:** other
**tier:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**tier badge:** Externally reported
**tier history:** Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded
**verdict:** accept
**verdict note:** HC upheld removal of constable for wilful absence from Feb 1999; internal-discipline matter.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0021](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0021)