21 Mar 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2017) 03 P&H CK 0127
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0019HaryanaJudgment 21 March 2017
Haryana Police Inspector vs State of Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition of Inspector of the Haryana Police, upholding a 15% cut in pension imposed for bribe-taking. [name withheld] was booked in FIR No.17 of 7.7.2012 under ss.7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act at the State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, with Rs.10,000 of tainted notes recovered from under his mattress, and a departmental enquiry held him guilty in February 2014. The Special Judge, Palwal acquitted him in the criminal trial in October 2014 after complainant [name withheld] turned hostile, but the department imposed the pension cut in January 2015 and the DGP dismissed his appeal in July 2015. The Court held the complainant was won over, other witnesses proved the recovery, and preponderance of probabilities sustains the departmental penalty. 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 21 March 2017 in CWP No.24214 of 2015 (O&M), the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Kuldip Singh, J.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Inspector, Haryana Police.
- Register number
- HR 00 CW 0002
- Case reference
- CWP No.24214 of 2015 (O&M) / (2017) 03 P&H CK 0127
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Kuldip Singh, J.), 21 March 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Inspector, Haryana Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “However, other witnesses did prove that when the raid was conducted, the petitioner took out the tainted money of Rs. 10,000/- below his matress and hand over the same to the raiding party.” (at para 7)
- 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 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 21 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.
“However, other witnesses did prove that when the raid was conducted, the petitioner took out the tainted money of Rs. 10,000/- below his matress and hand over the same to the raiding party.” (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.