15 Nov 2006
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-33
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2006-0029DelhiJudgment 15 November 2006
Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Inspector faced departmental proceedings on the charge that two constables under him, acting on his sister-in-law's complaint, dispossessed shopkeeper [name withheld] of his shop by removing his goods and putting her lock on it, without any DD entry or registered case. The enquiry held the misconduct proved and the disciplinary authority on 21.3.2000 imposed forfeiture of two years approved service with pay reduction (the same order also punished Head Constable and Constable [name withheld]); his appeal, OA and restoration pleas all failed. The Court held the petitioner could not disown his subordinates' acts and sustained the misconduct finding and forfeiture. It struck only the direction postponing future increments as contrary to Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, and otherwise dismissed the writ.
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 15 November 2006 in W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2006, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Manmohan Sarin, Vipin Sanghi, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 3 police personnel, namely: Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0018
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2006 / LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-33
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Manmohan Sarin, Vipin Sanghi, JJ.), 15 November 2006
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “we are unable to agree with the petitioner that there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner and he could not be held liable for the acts of his subordinates.” (at para 6)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld.
- 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 15 November 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.
“we are unable to agree with the petitioner that there was no misconduct committed by the petitioner and he could not be held liable for the acts of his subordinates.” (para 6)
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.