# Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

HTML version: [https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0029)

## 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.
- Source orders: [Judgment / order (primary source)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/457839/); [Permanent link to this record](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0029)

**Record:** CW-2006-0029 (compiler id CWC-1174); case GAP3-39-005
**Title:** Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**Court:** Delhi High Court; judges: Manmohan Sarin; Vipin Sanghi
**Case number / citation:** W.P.(C) No. 3312 of 2006 / LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-33
**Judgment:** 2006-11-15 (2006, day precision)
**Incident date:** Not stated
**Place:** Delhi; force: state_police
**Category:** Other misconduct
**Sub-category:** other
**Outcome:** Disciplinary action upheld (disciplinary_upheld)
**Sections:** Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 r.8(d)(ii)
**Officers (gated display forms):** Inspector, Delhi Police; Head Constable, Delhi Police; Constable, Delhi Police (3 in record)
**Victims:** Delhi man (1 in record)
**Sentence / compensation:** None ordered

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.

> 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.

**Sources (2):** [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/457839/); [courtkutchehry.com](https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/902156/ram-janam-singh-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others/)
**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:** 6
**display title redacted:** Delhi Police Inspector vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
**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': \['sections'\]}
**followup status:** checked
**institutional response:** {'date': '2006-11-15', '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': 'LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-33', 'recheck': 'Not yet re-checked.'}
**last checked:** 2026-09-19
**link checked per url:** {'url': 'https://indiankanoon.org/doc/457839/', 'link_checked': None}; {'url': 'https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/902156/ram-janam-singh-vs-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-others/', '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:** Misconduct finding sustained; forfeiture of 2 yrs approved service upheld, increment bar struck.
**verification badge:** V2 · Externally reported
**verification status:** V2
**watch:** babuwatch

Status: Disciplinary action upheld.

[Open CW-2006-0029](https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/incident/CW-2006-0029)