11 Apr 2008
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 149(2008)DLT674; (2008) 04 DEL CK 0209
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2008-0020DelhiJudgment 11 April 2008
Delhi Police Constable vs Commissioner of Police and Others
The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. Constable was arrested on 13.6.1986 in FIR No. 211/1986 under Section 21 NDPS Act, convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI in 1987 and dismissed in 1988, but acquitted by the High Court on 6.1.1989 for non-proof beyond reasonable doubt and reinstated in 1996. A departmental inquiry on the same allegations found him guilty and on 10.2.1998 imposed forfeiture of five years approved service with pay reduction, upheld in appeal and by the CAT. The Court held Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was attracted since the acquittal rested substantially on technical non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act, leaving suspicion capable of resting on the official. Departmental proceedings were therefore not without jurisdiction, and the writ petition was dismissed. 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 11 April 2008 in W.P.(C) No. 4170 of 2001, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Manmohan Sarin, Manmohan, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, 1st Battalion, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0022
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) No. 4170 of 2001 / 149(2008)DLT674; (2008) 04 DEL CK 0209
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Manmohan Sarin, Manmohan, JJ.), 11 April 2008
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, 1st Battalion, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal subserves the ends of justice and does not call for any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.” (at para 12)
- 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 11 April 2008 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 of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal subserves the ends of justice and does not call for any interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.” (para 12)
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.