{
 "record_id": "CW-2021-0018",
 "status": "current",
 "merged_id": "CWC-1223",
 "alias_merged_ids": [],
 "display_title": "Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat",
 "display_title_redacted": "Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat",
 "state": "Gujarat",
 "district": null,
 "district_at_time": null,
 "city_town": null,
 "police_station_or_unit": null,
 "court": "Gujarat High Court",
 "court_as_verified": "Gujarat High Court",
 "bench": null,
 "case_title": "Gujarat Police Unarmed Police Constable vs State of Gujarat",
 "case_number": "R/Special Civil Application No. 9645 of 2008",
 "citation": null,
 "judges": [
  "Biren Vaishnav"
 ],
 "judgment_date": "2021-09-01",
 "date_precision": "day",
 "judgment_year": 2021,
 "incident_date": "2002-04-26",
 "incident_year": 2002,
 "category": "Other",
 "admin_category": "misconduct",
 "admin_subcategory": "other",
 "subcategory": "other",
 "subcategory_display": "other",
 "protest_override_heuristic": false,
 "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld",
 "sections": [],
 "officers": [
  {
   "name": null,
   "rank": "Unarmed Police Constable",
   "role": "held_liable",
   "unit": "Gujarat Police",
   "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": "Unarmed Police Constable, Gujarat Police"
  }
 ],
 "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://indiankanoon.org/doc/55991816/",
 "secondary_sources": [],
 "summary": "Unarmed Police Constable remained absent from duty from 26 April 2002 to 5 December 2002 (224 days) and was dismissed on 10 May 2004 after an ex-parte departmental inquiry, a penalty confirmed in appeal and revision. He challenged the dismissal under Article 226, contending illness and violation of natural justice. The Court noted an earlier penalty reducing his pay was already in force and found no improvement in his behaviour despite past penalties. The Court held the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the misconduct and dismissed the petition, leaving the dismissal undisturbed. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.",
 "summary_verified": "Unarmed Police Constable remained absent from duty from 26 April 2002 to 5 December 2002 (224 days) and was dismissed on 10 May 2004 after an ex-parte departmental inquiry, a penalty confirmed in appeal and revision. He challenged the dismissal under Article 226, contending illness and violation of natural justice. The Court noted an earlier penalty reducing his pay was already in force and found no improvement in his behaviour despite past penalties. The Court held the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the misconduct and dismissed the petition, leaving the dismissal undisturbed.",
 "court_quote": "this Court after undertaking all analysis of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the penalty of dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner.",
 "court_quote_para": "8",
 "confidence": "high",
 "verdict": "accept",
 "verdict_note": "HC judgment verified on IK; dismissal of police constable for 224-day absence upheld under Art 226.",
 "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": "2021-09-01",
   "action_type": "Order issued",
   "status": "Concluded",
   "authority": "Gujarat High Court",
   "independence": "External",
   "legal_effect": "Binding",
   "description": "The Gujarat High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.",
   "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only",
   "source": "R/Special Civil Application No. 9645 of 2008",
   "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://indiankanoon.org/doc/55991816/",
   "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-114"
 ],
 "merged_case_id": "GAP3-53-006",
 "officers_named_public": 0,
 "record_flag": null,
 "service": "police",
 "watch": "babuwatch"
}