22 Dec 2014
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(C) No. 196/2003
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2014-0013South East Delhi, DelhiJudgment 22 December 2014
Ex. Const. Satbir Singh and Anr. vs National Capital Territory of Delhi
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition of two ex-constables and sustained their dismissal for misappropriating recovered case property. On patrol from P.S. Badarpur on 14 January 1991, they caught a thief and recovered Rs 1,38,000 but deposited only Rs 56,200, pocketing the rest; though acquitted in the criminal trial in 1999, a joint departmental enquiry had held misappropriation established and both were dismissed in October 1999. The Court held the departmental proceedings were properly initiated under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules despite the acquittal, found no prejudice from document non-supply, and upheld the CAT order dismissing their challenge.
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 22 December 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 196/2003, the Delhi High Court (Coram: S. Ravindra Bhat, Vipin Sanghi, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against 2 police personnel, namely: Satbir Singh (Constable); Constable, P.S. Badarpur.
- Register number
- DL 03 CW 0021
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) No. 196/2003
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: S. Ravindra Bhat, Vipin Sanghi, JJ.), 22 December 2014
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Satbir Singh (Constable); Constable, P.S. Badarpur
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “For these reasons, the Court sees no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.” (at para 26)
- 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 22 December 2014 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.
“For these reasons, the Court sees no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.” (para 26)
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.