Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980

Head Constable Vijay Singh was dismissed after a departmental enquiry for allegedly failing to follow diary procedures and overwriting entries. The enquiry was preceded by a preliminary enquiry, but the department did not obtain prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Police as mandated by Rule 15(2) of the …

The appellant, a police constable, was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution without a departmental inquiry, on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one due to alleged threat, intimidation and possible tampering o…

Three police constables were dismissed after a departmental inquiry and criminal prosecution for allegedly extorting money, but were later acquitted by a Sessions Court. They sought reinstatement and back wages before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which annulled their dismissals on the ground that the puni…

The appellant, an Assistant Wireless Operator in the Delhi Police, was charged with misconduct for refusing to open a locked cabin, shouting at an inspecting officer, not being in uniform, and snatching a log‑book. A disciplinary inquiry found him guilty and dismissed him; the dismissal was upheld by the appellate auth…

Inspector Prem Chand, a raid officer in the Delhi Police, was charged with misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty for not seizing bribe money that had been tainted with phenolphthalein during a raid on Inspector Preet Pal Bansal. The accused inspector was acquitted in criminal court and the money was later retu…

Ram Kishan, a constable of the Delhi Police, was charged with facilitating an under‑trial prisoner to consume alcohol and with abusing superior officers. The departmental inquiry found the first charge unproved and the second partly proved, but the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (ADC), acting as disciplinary …