5 Apr 2006
Order issued
ConcludedThe Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2006) 4 SCC 265
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2006-0023Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 5 April 2006
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. [name withheld], a Delhi Armed Police constable enrolled in 1994, was implicated by co-accused confessions and his own custodial confession in the theft of two revolvers and a pistol from the Vijay Ghat Armoury while on sentry duty on the night of 22-23 June 1997; he was discharged in the criminal case for want of evidence beyond confessions. The Deputy Commissioner of Police dismissed him without enquiry under the Article 311(2)(b) proviso, but the CAT and the Delhi High Court set the dismissal aside. The Supreme Court held that criminal discharge does not bar departmental action and that Evidence Act Sections 25-26 do not apply to disciplinary proceedings, set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments, and restored the dismissal. 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 5 April 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 7488 of 2004, the Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. B. Sinha, P. P. Naolekar, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0013
- Case reference
- Civil Appeal No. 7488 of 2004 / (2006) 4 SCC 265
- Court and date
- Supreme Court of India (Coram: S. B. Sinha, P. P. Naolekar, JJ.), 5 April 2006
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India; Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned case made a confession and had pointed out the place wherefrom he allegedly had stolen two revolvers and one pistol, has, thus, not been disputed.” (at para 19)
- 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 Supreme Court of India judgment dated 5 April 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.
“The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned case made a confession and had pointed out the place wherefrom he allegedly had stolen two revolvers and one pistol, has, thus, not been disputed.” (para 19)
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.