20 Feb 2026
Order issued
ConcludedThe Delhi High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: W.P.(C) 8707/2009
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2026-0009East Delhi, DelhiJudgment 20 February 2026
Delhi Police Woman Constable (DD Writer) vs Govt. of NCT and Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed Woman Constable's writ and upheld her dismissal for corruption caught in a TV sting. Posted as DD Writer at PS New Ashok Nagar, she demanded Rs 200 and accepted Rs 150 from decoy [name withheld] to register an NCR for a lost phone on 6 September 2005; the concealed-camera footage was telecast on Star News' Sansani programme. A joint departmental enquiry with Duty Officer HC relied on the video-CD plus duty records and departmental witnesses to hold her guilty. The Court held the sting video was cogent material, non-examination of the decoy not fatal, and concurrent findings of four fora neither perverse nor arbitrary. 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 20 February 2026 in W.P.(C) 8707/2009, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Woman Constable (DD Writer), Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi Police.
- Register number
- DL 07 CW 0021
- Case reference
- W.P.(C) 8707/2009
- Court and date
- Delhi High Court (Coram: Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ.), 20 February 2026
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Woman Constable (DD Writer), Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Not stated in the cited sources
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “This chain of concurrent factual determinations, based on oral, documentary and electronic material disclosed to the Petitioner, does not convince this Court that it is a case of no evidence or there has been a violation of natural justice.” (at para 19)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
Judgment dated 20 February 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.
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.
“This chain of concurrent factual determinations, based on oral, documentary and electronic material disclosed to the Petitioner, does not convince this Court that it is a case of no evidence or there has been a violation of natural justice.” (para 19)
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.