3 Jul 2009
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-405
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2009-0027North East, DelhiJudgment 3 July 2009
Ex. Const. Pawan Kumar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of former Delhi Police Constable Pawan Kumar and upheld his dismissal from service without enquiry under Article 311(2)(b). The court found that for money he had conspired with known criminals to stage a fake gunshot attack on Anil Mahajan on 4 March 2005 in Ambedkar Basti so that Mahajan could falsely implicate his relatives in an attempt-to-murder case (FIR 74/2005). The court held that Gulfam's Section 164 CrPC statement and the phone-call links supplied solid material showing the constable's criminal propensity, and that retaining an officer capable of misusing official power to implicate innocents would endanger witnesses. It found no infirmity in the disciplinary authority's satisfaction that holding an enquiry was not reasonably practicable. 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 3 July 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 991 of 2008, the Delhi High Court (Coram: A. K. Sikri, Suresh Kait, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Pawan Kumar (Constable).
- Register number
- DL 05 CW 0006
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) No. 991 of 2008 / LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-405
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: A. K. Sikri, Suresh Kait, JJ.), 3 July 2009
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Pawan Kumar (Constable)
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India; Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “The petitioner herein belongs to the Disciplined Force. When material has surfaced on record showing links of the petitioner with criminal elements and also that conspiring with such hardened criminals, the petitioner allegedly implicated innocent persons in a false criminal …” (at para 20)
- 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 3 July 2009 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 petitioner herein belongs to the Disciplined Force. When material has surfaced on record showing links of the petitioner with criminal elements and also that conspiring with such hardened criminals, the petitioner allegedly implicated innocent persons in a false criminal …” (para 20)
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.