# Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0023)

## 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.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0023)

**Record:** CW-2006-0023 (compiler id CWC-0909); case GAP2-58-002
**Title:** Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable
**Court:** Supreme Court of India; judges: S. B. Sinha; P. P. Naolekar
**Case number / citation:** Civil Appeal No. 7488 of 2004 / (2006) 4 SCC 265
**Judgment:** 2006-04-05 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** 1997-06-22 (1997)
**Place:** Central Delhi, Delhi; city town: Delhi; police station or unit: Vijay Ghat Armoury, Delhi Armed Police; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Constitution Art. 311(2)(b); Evidence Act s.25; Evidence Act s.26; CrPC s.162; Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 r.12
**Officers (gated display forms):** Constable, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi Police (1 in record)
**Victims:** Not stated (0 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** dismissal
**Sentence type:** dismissal (dismissal)

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.

> 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.

**Sources (3):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658935/commissioner-police-new-delhi-vs-narender-singh/); [bnblegal.com](https://bnblegal.com/landmark/commissioner-police-new-delhi-v-narender-singh/)
**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:** 19
**display title redacted:** Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Delhi Armed Police Constable
**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': \['court_quote_para'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-04-05', 'action_type': 'Order issued', 'status': 'Concluded', 'authority': 'Supreme Court of India', 'independence': 'External', 'legal_effect': 'Binding', 'description': 'The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.', 'disposition': 'Disciplinary action · Procedural only', 'source': '(2006) 4 SCC 265', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1353031/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/658935/commissioner-police-new-delhi-vs-narender-singh/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://bnblegal.com/landmark/commissioner-police-new-delhi-v-narender-singh/', '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:** SC judgment verified on Indian Kanoon; dismissal of DAP constable for armoury theft restored.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0023](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0023)