CW-2023-0042Kamrup Metropolitan, AssamJudgment 24 May 2023

Guwahati Police IPS officer v. Union of India & Ors.

The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. IPS officer of the Gujarat cadre, serving as CVO of NEEPCO on central deputation, gave an interview to India Today on 2-3 March 2016 in official NEEPCO premises at Guwahati without authority, commenting on the Ishrat Jahan encounter investigation and official matters. Charge memos of 2016 and 2018 led to an inquiry that held Articles 1 to 4 proved, the UPSC advised the proved charges constituted grave misconduct, and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on 30.08.2022. The Delhi High Court held the findings were not based on no evidence, found no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice, and dismissed his writ petition, rendering the three connected petitions infructuous. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 24 May 2023 in W.P.(C) 10539/2021 (with W.P.(C) 10486/2021, 10493/2021, 10519/2021), the Delhi High Court (Coram: Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the IPS officer, IPS (Gujarat cadre; CVO, NEEPCO on central deputation).

Register number
AS 25 CW 0006
Case reference
W.P.(C) 10539/2021 (with W.P.(C) 10486/2021, 10493/2021, 10519/2021) / 2023:DHC:3630-DB
Court and date
Delhi High Court (Coram: Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.), 24 May 2023
Officer(s) at the material time
IPS officer, IPS (Gujarat cadre; CVO, NEEPCO on central deputation)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Rule 3(1) of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968; Rule 6 of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968; Rule 7 of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968; Rule 9 of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968; Rule 17 of the AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Further, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not been able to show any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings …” (at para 86)
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.

The Delhi High Court judgment dated 24 May 2023 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Further, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has not been able to show any procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings …” (para 86)

Institutional response

1
24 May 2023

Order issued

Concluded
Delhi High Court External · Binding

The Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.

Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2023:DHC:3630-DB
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.