11 Oct 2017
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(C) 8939/2017
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2017-0034New Delhi, DelhiJudgment 11 October 2017
Delhi Police Constable vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court (Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, JJ.) on 11 October 2017 dismissed the writ petition of Delhi Police Constable and upheld his dismissal from service. The court noted he had been trapped and caught red-handed by the Anti-Corruption Branch accepting Rs. 3,000 as bribe after demanding Rs. 7,000 to stop harassing the complainant's brother (FIR No. 41/2009). A departmental enquiry examining six prosecution witnesses held the charge proved beyond any shadow of doubt, leading to dismissal on 7 March 2013. The court held his later criminal acquittal was on benefit of doubt and not honourable, so it did not entitle him to reinstatement under Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Incident date year-only in judgment; recorded as 2009-01-01. 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 11 October 2017 in W.P.(C) 8939/2017, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Vipin Sanghi, Rekha Palli, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 02 CW 0014
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) 8939/2017
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Vipin Sanghi, Rekha Palli, JJ.), 11 October 2017
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Recorded in the cited sources as dismissed from service.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not call for interference and the present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” (at para 34)
- 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 11 October 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.
“For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not call for interference and the present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” (para 34)
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.