25 Jan 2001
Order issued
ConcludedThe Rajasthan High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: (2001) 2 RLW 819
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2001-0012RajasthanJudgment 25 January 2001
Rajasthan Police Constable vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court records the following account. Police Constable, selected in December 1996 and on duty from February 1997, left duty on 2 June 1997 without intimation or leave and stayed continuously absent until 10 November 1997 — 162 days — ignoring a show-cause notice to report immediately, with a prior 43-day absence on record. He pleaded his mother's serious illness and ignorance of rules as a novice, and contended termination was disproportionate. The Division Bench found these unsubstantiated lame excuses with no medical certificate produced, held that 162 days' absence without leave in a disciplined police force is serious misconduct for which no order except termination could be passed, and dismissed the special appeal.
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 25 January 2001 in Civil Special Appeal No. 72 of 2001, the Rajasthan High Court (Coram: H.R. Panwar, B.J. Shethna, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Rajasthan Police.
- Register number
- RJ 00 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Civil Special Appeal No. 72 of 2001 / (2001) 2 RLW 819
- Court and date
- Rajasthan High Court (Coram: H.R. Panwar, B.J. Shethna, JJ.), 25 January 2001
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Rajasthan Police
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- the Rajasthan CCA Rules, 1958
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “If he was in the other department, then there would have been a different consideration but the appellant was in police department which is a disciplined force where such along absence of 162 days from duly without any leave should …” (at para 2)
- 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 Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 25 January 2001 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.
“If he was in the other department, then there would have been a different consideration but the appellant was in police department which is a disciplined force where such along absence of 162 days from duly without any leave should …” (para 2)
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.