17 Apr 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(C) 5810/2015
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0020East Delhi, DelhiJudgment 17 April 2017
New Delhi Woman vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.
The Delhi High Court (Vipin Sanghi and Deepa Sharma, JJ.) on 17 April 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Smt. Kusum Chaudhary, widow of Delhi Police Constable, and upheld his dismissal from service. The court recorded that on 20 June 2006 he and a co-delinquent picked up a New Delhi man as a proclaimed offender and, though the Additional SHO ordered his release, demanded and took Rs. 20,000 for the release, with further recorded demands thereafter. It held the complainant's credibility unimpeached and corroborated by a neighbour witness, sustained the serious-misconduct finding, and refused family pension and arrears. The dismissal order dated 2 March 2007 was thus confirmed through appeal, Tribunal and High Court.
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 17 April 2017 in W.P.(C) 5810/2015, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Vipin Sanghi, Deepa Sharma, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 07 CW 0017
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) 5810/2015
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Vipin Sanghi, Deepa Sharma, JJ.), 17 April 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “In our view, the aforesaid does not impinge on the credibility of the complainant PW-3 [name withheld]. This is for the reason that both Constable [name withheld] and Constable [name withheld] had together proceeded to the residence of PW-3 [name …” (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 17 April 2017 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.
“In our view, the aforesaid does not impinge on the credibility of the complainant PW-3 [name withheld]. This is for the reason that both Constable [name withheld] and Constable [name withheld] had together proceeded to the residence of PW-3 [name …” (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.