4 Jul 2023
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2023-0045Budgam, Jammu and KashmirJudgment 4 July 2023
CRPF Constable/GD v. Union of India & Ors.
The judgment of the Delhi High Court records the following account. CRPF Constable/GD [name withheld] of D Company, 176 Battalion at Waripora (Budgam), while undergoing line-custody punishment, unauthorisedly purchased and consumed an overdose of liquor on 07.12.2008, entered the subordinate officers' mess drunk, seized a loaded carbine and pointed it at SI/GD a Waripora resident The enquiry officer found him a habitual offender frequently caught drunk on duty, and the Commandant dismissed him from service on 11.02.2009, affirmed on appeal and revision. The Delhi High Court held rejection of his casual leave gave him no licence to consume liquor and rebel against the competent authority, found the dismissal just and proper, and dismissed his writ petition. 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 4 July 2023 in W.P.(C) 1883/2010, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable/GD, D Company, 176 Battalion, CRPF, Waripora.
- Register number
- JK 04 CW 0002
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) 1883/2010 / 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 549
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.), 4 July 2023
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable/GD, D Company, 176 Battalion, CRPF, Waripora
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949; Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The misconduct committed by the petitioner leaves no scope for leniency towards him.” (at para 24)
- 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 4 July 2023 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.
“The misconduct committed by the petitioner leaves no scope for leniency towards him.” (para 24)
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.