{
 "record_id": "CW-2010-0026",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-0899",
 "alias_merged_ids": [],
 "display_title": "Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another",
 "display_title_redacted": "Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another",
 "state": "Rajasthan",
 "district": "Bikaner",
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": null,
 "police_station_or_unit": "Bikaner district police",
 "court": "Rajasthan High Court",
 "court_as_verified": "Rajasthan High Court",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Bikaner Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan and Another",
 "case_number": "Special Appeal (Writ) arising from CWP No. 1814/1992",
 "citation": "(2010) 2 WLN 465",
 "judges": [
  "Jagdish Bhalla",
  "Dinesh Maheshwari"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "2010-03-22",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 2010,
 "incident_date": null,
 "incident_year": null,
 "category": "Other",
 "admin_category": "misconduct",
 "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering",
 "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering",
 "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering",
 "protest_override_heuristic": false,
 "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld",
 "sections": [
  "Rajasthan CCA Rules 1958 Rule 16",
  "Constitution Art. 226"
 ],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": "Constable",
   "role": "held_liable",
   "unit": "Bikaner district police, Rajasthan",
   "publish_grade": "unnamed",
   "gate_reasons": [
    "ledger:no_row",
    "key2:no_row"
   ],
   "ledger_role": null,
   "key2": null,
   "key2_agy": null,
   "key2_claude": null,
   "key2_union": null,
   "key2_gemapi": null,
   "key2_openrouter": null,
   "key2_gpt56": null,
   "grok": null,
   "jev_risk": null,
   "jev_p_culpable": null,
   "key2_gpt": null,
   "later_outcome": null,
   "name_public": null,
   "display": "Constable, Bikaner district police, Rajasthan"
  }
 ],
 "officer_count": 1,
 "victims": [],
 "victims_redacted": null,
 "anonymised": false,
 "victim_count": 0,
 "sentence_type": "dismissal",
 "sentence_max_years": null,
 "compensation_inr": null,
 "force": "state_police",
 "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/",
 "secondary_sources": [],
 "summary": "Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) [name withheld] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).",
 "summary_verified": "Constable was charge-sheeted under Rule 16 CCA Rules for habitual absence (earlier dismissed in 1983, reinstated in 1986; absent 40 times in about 8.5 years), inattention to duties, indisciplined conduct and blackmail of officers, and engineering a false ACB bribery trap against Inspector (Wireless) [name withheld] over what was a loan repayment. He did not participate in the inquiry despite opportunities; the SP Bikaner dismissed him on 12.06.1991, the DIG dismissed his appeal on 03.01.1992, and the Single Judge dismissed his writ on 29.05.1997. The Division Bench held he could not complain of ex parte proceedings, no prejudice was shown, he relied on a prima facie fabricated document, and the habitual-absenteeism finding in a disciplined service was sound. It dismissed the appeal with Rs.5,500 costs (no single incident date; misconduct spanned 1983-1991).",
 "court_quote": "The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,500/- (five thousand and five hundred).",
 "court_quote_para": "27",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "Special appeal verified; dismissal of habitually absent constable upheld with Rs.5,500 costs.",
 "verification_status": "V2",
 "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported",
 "tier_badge": "Externally reported",
 "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded",
 "tier_history": [
  "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded"
 ],
 "allegations": [
  {
   "category": "Other",
   "primary": true,
   "position": "Material fact supported",
   "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.",
   "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation"
  }
 ],
 "institutional_response": [
  {
   "date": "2010-03-22",
   "action_type": "Order issued",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Rajasthan High Court",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.",
   "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only",
   "source": "(2010) 2 WLN 465",
   "recheck": "Not yet re-checked."
  }
 ],
 "later_proceedings": [],
 "final_outcome_url": null,
 "followup_history": [
  {
   "date": "2026-09-19",
   "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass",
   "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)",
   "result": "holds",
   "corrections_applied": []
  }
 ],
 "followup_status": "checked",
 "last_checked": "2026-09-19",
 "link_checked_per_url": [
  {
   "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/213635/hanumana-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-another/",
   "link_checked": null
  }
 ],
 "source_assessment": {
  "established": null,
  "basis": null
 },
 "v3_basis": null,
 "publication_basis": null,
 "reviews": [],
 "retracted": {
  "is_retracted": false
 },
 "fidelity_checked": true,
 "verified_by": [
  "chunk-75"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "GAP2-54-002",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}