25 Jul 2005
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2005) 123 DLT 185 : (2005) 83 DRJ 703
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2005-0014Central Delhi, DelhiJudgment 25 July 2005
Surender Kumar vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police constable Surender Kumar and upheld his removal from service for habitual unauthorised absence, holding it proved that he absented himself on five occasions between June 1997 and June 1999 totalling 137 days, on top of 34 earlier absences that had drawn warnings and censure. The Court rejected his illness plea, noting he produced no medical certificates for four of the five spells and did not respond to directions to report for medical examination. It held judicial review of the quantum of punishment is extremely limited, that removal was not ex-facie disproportionate, and described him as a habitual absentee of incorrigible type in a disciplined force. 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 25 July 2005 in CW No. 10451 of 2004, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Mukundakam Sharma, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Surender Kumar (Constable).
- Register number
- DL 06 CW 0012
- Case reference
- CW No. 10451 of 2004 / (2005) 123 DLT 185 : (2005) 83 DRJ 703
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Mukundakam Sharma, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.), 25 July 2005
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Surender Kumar (Constable)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as removed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 23 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978; Rule 24 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It is quite clear that the petitioner is a habitual absentee of incorrigible type.” (at para 13)
- 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 25 July 2005 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.
“It is quite clear that the petitioner is a habitual absentee of incorrigible type.” (para 13)
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.