16 Mar 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(C) 717/2017
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0018DelhiJudgment 16 March 2017
Delhi Traffic Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court (Sanjiv Khanna and Chander Shekhar, JJ.) on 16 March 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Traffic Police Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded his wilful unauthorised absence from 4 July 2004 to 25 February 2009, over four years and seven months at one stretch, compounded by a false written statement about resuming duty and three past absences. It held the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing his challenge was just and fair. The Disciplinary Authority had dismissed him on 23 April 2010 for grave misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. This is an internal-discipline case with no civilian victim. 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 16 March 2017 in W.P.(C) 717/2017, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Sanjiv Khanna, Chander Shekhar, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Delhi Traffic Police.
- Register number
- DL 00 CW 0028
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) 717/2017
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Sanjiv Khanna, Chander Shekhar, JJ.), 16 March 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Delhi Traffic Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980; the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In the factual matrix of the present case, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal is just and fair. This is a case of wilful unauthorised absence not for a small period, but for over 4 years and …” (at para 7)
- 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 Delhi High Court judgment dated 16 March 2017 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.
“In the factual matrix of the present case, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal is just and fair. This is a case of wilful unauthorised absence not for a small period, but for over 4 years and …” (para 7)
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.